4 replies to this topic

[vmax65]

In 1965 a Ginetta G4R ran in the 12 Hours of Sebring.  It began practice and qualifying for the race with a 1,720cc Vegantune twin cam, which blew up during practice.  The owner of the Ginetta, Jack Walsh, drove a Mini in the 3 hour sedan race following the Ginetta engine failure.  At one point during the 3 hour race, when Jim Clark was lapping Walsh's MIni, Clark and Walsh ended up door-handle to door-handle through a certain corner.  They made it through successfully and Clark went on to win the race.  Afterward, Clark stopped by the Ginetta pits to thank Walsh for not lifting, opining that had he done so they both would have wrecked.  During their discussion Clark asked how the Ginetta effort was going, and Walsh informed him of the motor issue.  Clark offered to help and asked Jim Endruweit whether the Ginetta team could use the practice motor from his Cortina.  Permission was granted and the Ginetta lasted roughly six hours in the main event, holding second in class, when Clark's motor let go.  The remains of the race motor were likely returned to Lotus and Walsh returned to Massachusetts with the bits of his Vegantune. 

 

I'm trying to document what type of lubrication system was used in the original 1,7200cc Vegantune.  Jack Walsh and Ivor Walklett, who built the car for Sebring, recall with certainty that the Vegantune motor used a dry sump; photos from Sebring illustrate an engine height consistent with a dry sump motor; and a wet sump engine doesn't fit in the Ginetta without leaving inadequate ground clearance or modifying the nose section. The BRM loaned to the Ginetta team by Endruweitt, I'm told, would have most likely been used by Clark as a wet sump, but it seems perfectly reasonable that the Vegantune's dry-sump pump and pan could have been used on the Clark motor.  I'm trying to find somebody who may have worked for Vegantune or Ginetta, or may have been at Sebring with either the Ginetta or Cortina teams, who might recall whether the motor was a dry- or wet-sump configuration.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you,

 

Ed

 

 

[bradbury west]

You might start by contacting TNFer Geoff butcher, aka h4887, who is a very active Ginetta-ist, and may be able to help or point you in the right direction.
Roger Lund

[vmax65]

Thank you, Roger.  I will get in touch with Geoff.

 

Ed

[h4887]

Ed, you have a PM

[Mukki3332]

I know this is nearly a year old but wonder whether the PM shed any light on the position? Clark and Sears used wet sump motors in their Cortinas according to Lotus records so their spare engine was most likely a wet sump one although as stated switching pans should not have been an issue. If the purpose of the question was about getting an FIA Historical Technical Passport then I think the position may be interesting. The car entered at 1720cc and ran in the event at 1720cc (practice) and 1580cc (race) so given Appendix K says 'as entered' I guess the HTP would only be avilable at 1720cc not 1580cc. The same logic should apply to the lubrication system but given both systems would have been within the regulations I guess if the car ran in either practice or the race with a dry sump, even if the dry sump was on the 1580cc engine, then dry sump would be allowable for an HTP? However there is seemingly no period record or photgraph to prove or disprove dry sump in practice or the race and the FIA working assumption, whether appropriate or not, appears to be wet sump. The FIA require two contemporary articles to justify a specification so Ivor's current recollection will not help. When I went to DARE and looked at a G4R engineless car it is clear that the issue with a wet sump is solely the ground clearance and that may, or may not, be outside of the Sebring examination parameters as set out in the 1965 rules. Theroetical calculations put it right on the limit. However I am led to believe the examinations (scruitineering) at Sebring were unlikely to be documented (or retaimed now) and were not over thorough. The engine will fit with a wet sump, subject to ground clearance, although the engine compartment floor has to be removed - as it is on the original of the car apparently although when this happened is not known. The only piece of anything approaching evidence is the jigs at DARE for the engine mountings for the G4 / G4R. There are only two jigs, they are the original jigs and have the original labelling, by hand, on them. They give two resultant engine heights with the same Ford block (ie the Lotus TC block). The pushrod block is mounted higher as the head and cam cover are lower and there was a wet sump. The Twin Cam engine mount says 'Lotus Twin Cam - Dry Sump' . Helpful in terms of reinforcing the view that a dry sump was invariably used but certainly not FIA conclusive.
Can anyone add anything to help one way or the other?