
Project Pinto: The Joy, Sorrow, and Work of Building a Race Car
Once again the intrepid editors of Car and Driver have thrust their necks into the thick of the Goodrich Radial Challenge, which, for all of you who came in late, is a road-racing series for small sedans sanctioned by the International Motor Sports Association. Four races were entered, two poles were captured, and one winner's circle was invaded. So much for what we did on our summer vacation.
Our car was a Ford Pinto, and the win was the first victory for a Pinto in two years of Goodrich racing. But the really fascinating part—to us, at least—is that the season's results strongly support a hunch we've been kicking around the office for years. We reckon that motor racing is almost entirely an intellectual game. Brains are trump. Bullfighter-brave drivers will give the car a good run and Onassis budgets take the worry out of blown engines, but it is thoughtful selection and logical preparation of the car in the first place that wins races. There are no tricks and no short cuts. It's common sense all the way. At least, that's what we thought. And the Pinto project—winning in its second appearance, long after most of the serious racers had dismissed Ford's subcompact as a lost cause—rather grandly supports our theory.
Every racing project has to start with fundamentals. You must have a thorough understanding of the rules and complete specifications for all the eligible cars.
It would be easy to lapse into "The Anatomy of a Winning Pinto" at this point—everything from valve-seat angles to camber settings—but frankly, it would be pretty dull. The car, in fact, is completely conventional. It even scored its one victory (at Charlotte Motor Speedway) using its original hydraulic valve lifters. Any number of competent mechanics would have made the same modifications we did and, if they were thorough, probably would have ended up with the same results. So the real story is not in the car itself but in our approach to it: Why we chose a Pinto and how we knew what to do with it.
Every racing project has to start with fundamentals. You must have a thorough understanding of the rules and complete specifications for all the eligible cars. Ideally, you would also have first-hand and quantitative observations of the cars that you'll have to beat: how fast they are, where are they fast (corners, straights, or under braking), and how close are they to the limits of their development. You have to know all of this before you can choose the right car. And the right car is absolutely essential if you want to win.
The Top Cars: BMW 2002 and AMC Gremlin (Really)
We went into the 1974 Goodrich series with an excellent backlog of information. Car and Driver's Mazda Wankel race car had been a first-class observation platform during the 1973 races. We had been able to run with the leaders in every race and could compare their strengths and weaknesses to a car we knew. Apart from the Mazda (which IMSA subsequently hobbled with a rules change), there were only two other competitive cars in the series: the AMC Gremlin and the BMW 2002.
The Gremlin is an odd duck. It's really a big car made compact by chopping out about a third of the body. But it retains the control-arm front suspension, huge brakes, and six-inch-wide wheels of the big American Motors models, not to mention the 232-cubic-inch six-cylinder engine. Next to the Mazda, it was the fastest car on the straightaways and we considered it the one to beat.
But how do you recognize the third-best car? Durability is the most important factor—you have to finish to win. Speed is next, then handling, and finally brakes. Ties are broken by picking the least costly alternative.
The BMW ranked a close second. Its 2.0-liter engine is very powerful for its size, enabling the 2300-pound sedan to keep up with the 2700-pound Gremlins in acceleration, losing out only in top speed on long straights like those at Road Atlanta and Daytona. Handling and braking are about on a par with the Gremlins and better than you would expect, considering the BMW's MacPherson front suspension and rather small brakes. This can probably be attributed to the endless development work done by Miller & Norburn, the leading BMW team. And it would further suggest that these cars are nearing the limit of their potential.
At this point, a right-thinking racer should check the price difference between American Motors and (gasp!) BMW replacement parts, then slide himself into a Gremlin. If the point of the exercise were simply to win races, that's what we would have done. But we had a theory: that a logical and thoughtful approach applied to a lesser car could knock off the heavies. The only way to find out was to try.
Why We Picked the Third-Best Car
The search began for the third-best car. (We weren't willing to push our theory too far. Fourth or fifth best makes the job just a little too hard.) But how do you recognize the third-best car? Everyone has their own theories on that; this is ours. Durability is the most important factor—you have to finish to win. Speed is next, then handling and finally brakes. Ties are broken by picking the least costly alternative.
Car and Driver
While durability is most important, it is also the hardest to predict. You can examine the finishing records of various makes of cars for a clue, but usually you find only a reflection of how well they are prepared. And of course there can be exceptions. If there is a pattern to the failures—the crankshafts always break or the transmissions always fail—you can pinpoint a problem. But usually the failures are random, and you have to assume that you'll spot weak areas during preparation.
There are two kinds of speed, and the importance of each depends upon the type of tracks on which you'll be racing. At Daytona and Talladega, top speed is critical, and it depends entirely upon horsepower and aerodynamic drag. Since the principal component of drag is frontal area (roughly the width multiplied by the height of the car), hp-to-frontal area ratios are good indications of performance. At all the other tracks, acceleration is more important. A comparison of horsepower to weight tells the story here; ties are decided by the car with the closest spacing in the transmission ratios and the widest choice of axle gears.
The value of handling once again depends on the track, ranging from being of relatively minor importance at Daytona and Talladega to being a critical factor at tight tracks such as Lime Rock and Mid-Ohio. In fact, cornering capability is more important than power at Lime Rock. Handling can generally be predicted from the following parameters, listed in order of importance: suspension type (unequal-length control arms are better than MacPherson struts), wheel width, track width, and car height. The more of these items that are relatively favorable, the better the car will handle.
The importance of brakes increases on tracks with long straights followed by tight turns, but only in cases where brakes don't have enough capacity to last through the race do they become truly critical. When you have the freedom to substitute racing linings for the stock equipment (which you do in the Goodrich series), brake capacity depends almost entirely upon the weight of the car and size of the brakes. Under those circumstances, almost all of the eligible cars have adequate brakes, the Mazda RX-2 being the chief exception.
Since speed depends upon horsepower, there comes a point at which you have to get down to numbers.
With all of these car-evaluation parameters in mind, it's time to take a look at the tracks. The Goodrich series includes eight to 10 races, only three of which are on the superspeedways. So acceleration and handling are the most important qualities because they will see you through the conventional road courses in the best fashion. But the three superspeedway races depend almost entirely upon top speed and nothing else, so you can't afford to overlook this aspect.
The Competitive Equation
Since speed depends upon horsepower, there comes a point at which you have to get down to numbers. We knew the Wankel Racer produced 218 horsepower on the dyno, weighed 2350 pounds, and had a frontal area of 3400 square inches. Assuming that the Gremlins and BMWs were down to minimum weight and calculating their frontal areas from the specifications, we estimated their power-to-weight and power-to-frontal-area ratios relative to the Mazda based on their comparative speeds on the track. Solving the equation for horsepower, we concluded that the Gremlins had about 215 hp and the BMWs about 185, and this seemed within their capabilities. (Horsepower numbers have to be viewed with a great deal of caution. Some dynos—and some dyno operators—are optimistic; others are pessimistic. If you don't know the predilections of each, you can be seriously misled by their test results.)
Setting the Gremlin's power-to-weight and power-to-frontal-area as a target, it was then possible to check out all of the other eligible cars by simply substituting their weights and frontal areas and solving the equation for horsepower necessary to match the Gremlin's speed. That left the key question: Could the engines of the cars in question produce the required horsepower?
The power-to-frontal-area equation eliminates all of the small-engine cars right off the bat. We were particularly interested in the Toyota Corolla because of its 1850-pound minimum weight, but its frontal area turns out to be only 15 percent smaller than the Gremlin's and therefore would need about 180 horsepower to be competitive on long tracks. That would never happen with a 1.6-liter engine set up according to IMSA rules. The Honda Civic, with roughly the same frontal area, would be even worse off with only a 1237-cc engine.
Car and Driver
So the search for the third-best car was confined to those with engines of at least 2.0 liters, and it narrowed down to the Toyota Celica, the Mercury Capri 2000, and the Ford Pinto with either the 2.0-liter or new 2.3-liter engine. The Datsun 610 had previously been rejected because its 4.5-inch wheels are too narrow to work well with wide Goodrich Radial T/A tires, and the 2.0-liter Dodge Colt will not be approved by IMSA as long as it is only imported with an automatic transmission.
Further calculations eliminated the 2.0-liter Pinto. IMSA assigned it a minimum weight of 2100 pounds and specified an additional 200 pounds if the 2.3-liter engine was used. The 15 percent displacement increase of the 2.3 engine more than outweighed the 9.5 percent weight increase. Further, since frontal area remains the same, the larger engine would have a much better shot at the superspeedways.
Handling shot down the Toyota Celica. It's a narrow-track, MacPherson-suspension car and much too nose-heavy in street form. And IMSA's preparation rules don't allow enough latitude to fix its basic problems. Also, the engine was a complete unknown, and performance parts are rare.
We were attracted to the Capri primarily because of its fine aerodynamics. Its smaller frontal area would require about 15 less horsepower than the Pinto for the same top speed, and its uncommonly slippery shape would help even more. It was, however, 100 pounds heavier than the Pinto with the same 2.0-liter engine, its track was two inches narrower in front and three inches narrower in back and, finally, it had a MacPherson front suspension. All of this was tempered by the fact that a street Capri handles better than the stock versions of most of the cars it would race against and therefore wouldn't need as much improvement to be competitive.
We try to benefit from our own experience. When we find products or suppliers that do the job, we stick with them.
At this point, neither the Pinto nor the Capri had a firm advantage. The Pinto promised high aerodynamic drag (due to its width and poor shape), excellent handling potential (control-arm front suspension, wide track, and low car), and a large engine. The Capri offered low drag and moderately good handling.
It was the 2.3-liter engine that finally tipped the scale in favor of the Pinto. The 2.0-liter Pinto/Capri engine, on the other hand, had been around long enough so that all of the race shops had experience with it. And they all said the same thing: The intake ports are shaped wrong, severely limiting its potential for racing. At this point, nothing was known about Ford's new 2.3 engine except that it was the first U.S. engine to be produced with all metric dimensions—which hardly counts when the starter waves the green flag. So we bought a cylinder head and shipped it off to Doug Fraser Racing Engines in Marblehead, Massachusetts, for a candid opinion. Fraser specializes in Formula Fords but has broad four-cylinder experience including 2.0-liter Pinto, Colt, and BMW engines built to IMSA specifications. We were also familiar enough with his work to know that his engines were durable and his horsepower quotes quite conservative. Fraser pronounced the 2.3-liter ports substantially better than those of the 2.0 and predicted that the 2.3 would not only make more power than the 2.0 but would produce more power per cubic inch as well. At the same time, he was pessimistic about equaling the output of the 2.0-liter BMW, which has excellent ports. But with enough work, he thought the big Ford could come close.
Adding up the Pinto's advantages and disadvantages, we could predict with fair accuracy its performance on various tracks. Its high drag and shortage of horsepower would hold it back on the superspeedways, but on short tracks its excellent chassis would probably compensate for any lack of power.
Our Car
This was as far as the project could go on a slide rule, so we went out and bought a solid 30,000-mile 1972 Pinto two-door. A new car would have been an easier way to go—there are no hidden cracks in the unit-body and no worn parts to rebuild—but the 1974 Pinto is a substantially heavier car, and we could see no way to trim the weight down to the 2300-pound IMSA minimum.
The job of converting a street car into a racing car is time-consuming, but it's not particularly complicated. Making the car fast is a straightforward application of physics. The engines were farmed out to Doug Fraser, since professional engine builders usually save you money in the long run. You need good engines if you want to win, and good engines are the products of machine shops, airflow benches, and dynamometers. Not many amateur racers have this kind of equipment in their garages—or, for that matter, have enough time to build engines and keep their cars in first-class shape too. So we concentrated our efforts on the car, pausing occasionally to encourage Fraser when the horsepower was elusive and to threaten him when he was late. His plan was to build the first engine according to the dictates of his own experience, using whatever special parts (pistons, camshafts, valves, springs, etc.) could be obtained in time to meet our deadline. The second engine, to be available later in the season, was to be the product of much camshaft and cylinder-head development and would —hopefully—produce more power.
By having engines built outside, we were free to concentrate on the chassis. Since this figured to be the Pinto's only strong point, we wanted to optimize every detail right from the start. And the only way to have complete control, to make sure no shortcuts were taken, was to do the work in our own shop. Fortunately, C/D is equipped to do this.
When it comes to building racing cars, there are a very few key guidelines to follow, and if they are kept firmly in mind, the car will almost always turn out well. The most important is safety. The car has to be structurally strong to prevent breakage and it has to be reinforced to protect the driver in case of a crash. Like most of the other construction guidelines, safety has side benefits that show up in performance. If a car is structurally strong, it will also be rigid. And a rigid car will be predictable to its driver and respond to fine tuning adjustments of the brakes and suspension.
The main source of rigidity is the tubular-steel roll cage. It not only protects the driver but stiffens the car as well. To do this properly, it must tie into any suspension mounting points that are of questionable rigidity. Finding them is pure educated guesswork. Usually you tie into as many as you can reach and gusset the ones you can't, all the while trying to add the least weight. There are no textbooks for guidance, so we brazed up a scale model of the roll cage using straight sections of stiff wire. This proved to be only a rough aid, since it is impossible to simulate the structure of the car to which the cage will be attached. The job of stiffening the car is simpler in the Goodrich series because the rules specify street radial tires, which don't generate the cornering forces of racing tires and therefore don't load the chassis as much.
When we rubbed a hole in the oil pan during the car's third race (at Lime Rock), we knew how low is too low.
Next in importance to a rigid, safe car is—in the interest of both handling and aerodynamics—a low car. For handling, the important thing is to have the weight (center of gravity) low. This can be achieved in part by lowering the body/chassis unit as far as possible on the suspension, which obviously lowers every single pound in the car. But you can also lower the center of gravity by mounting various components (the seat, fuel cell, oil cooler, and other movables) as low in the car as possible.
To reduce aerodynamic drag, you want to minimize the space for air to flow under the car. A low car is the most direct way of doing so—but there is a limit. If you go too far, you'll either bottom out the suspension or scrape something off the underside. The only way to know is try and see what happens. With the Pinto at IMSA's minimum height (six inches from the ground to the center of the rocker panel) we rubbed a hole in the oil pan during the car's third race (at Lime Rock). Now we know how low is too low.
The next item is to make sure that all moving parts travel in exactly the paths you intend with no interferences. This applies mainly to the suspension. We favor hard bushings instead of rubber in all of the suspension pivots. It's also important to make sure the shocks don't bottom out, the ball joints aren't over-angled, and the brake hoses are neither pulled tight nor pinched as the suspension moves through its travel.
It's also a good idea to build in extra capacity in those areas where there is no serious penalty for doing so: Overdesign the cooling system (our Pinto has a Corvette aluminum radiator); use the largest brake ducts that will fit, and master cylinders with ample reservoirs; build in two electric fuel pumps with a large-diameter line to the carburetor; choose oversize filters where possible; and use heavy electrical wiring and high-quality bolts, clamps, and fasteners. The car may turn out somewhat heavier, but you won't have to waste time reworking systems that prove to be inadequate during the first few test sessions.
We also try to consult specialists whenever we can find them, since it always saves time to benefit from somebody else's experience. Sometimes other teams will even give away a tip or two. Bob Negstad, who modified the suspension on Larry Campbell's quick Pinto, suggested that we use the 1974 Pinto steering gear because it was stronger and told us how to fabricate the necessary mountings. He also showed us how to adapt the larger 1974 disc brakes to the 1972 car.
The final point to remember about building a race car is that there is no single right answer for any part of the car.
Finally, we try to benefit from our own experience. When we find products or suppliers that do the job, we stick with them. Much of the special equipment on the Pinto was proven on the previous Mazda Rotary Racer project: StewartWarner instruments, Superior Industries steering wheel, Cibie lights, Raybestos disc brake linings, and Velvetouch drum brake lining specially made at Rochester Brake and Clutch in Rochester, New York. The Pinto also has certain problems of its own that require special attention. A Hurst shifter happily replaces that standard Ford part that has been known to periodically pop out of the top of the transmission if the driver pulls too hard. And Hurst/Schiefer also makes 4.10 and 4.30 axle ratios to supplement the standard Ford gears, which are correct only for superspeedways. For the most part, we used Koni shock absorbers in front, Bilsteins in back, and did some promising experimentation with Gabriel Striders along the way. Unfortunately, four races didn't give us enough time to find all of the answers in the shocks department.
Which brings us to the final point about building a racing car: There is no one single right answer for any part of the car. There is no perfect spring rate, no optimum chassis stiffness, and no ideal sway-bar setting. Cars will work well with a broad range of these valves so long as they are all compatible. The only way to know what works and what doesn't is to try them. This applies particularly to the suspension. Our plan was to make the best estimate going in and then provide plenty of adjustment. It has proven to be a workable approach. The Pinto required only half a day on the skidpad and half a day of testing at Lime Rock to iron out its problems. With no more proving than that, it finished at Talladega (where two pit stops to replace flat tires—not Goodrichs—dropped it to 24th place) and then went on to win at Charlotte a week later.
Would we do it all again? Well, if our mechanical insight gets much better, we figure that soon there won't even be any point in going to the track. We'll be able to decide the outcome of the races without ever leaving our desks.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jake Ferguson's $52 million contract exposes Cowboys' draft mistake
Jake Ferguson's new contract should be a happy day for the Cowboys front office. A fourth round pick turned into Dak Prescott's security blanket for the future. But beneath the high-fives and congratulations is an underhanded admittance that Dallas whiffed on a draft pick not too long ago. A year after Ferguson was drafted, the Cowboys selected tight end Luke Schoonmaker in the second round of the 2023 draft. At the time, Ferguson only had 19 receptions for 174 yards his rookie year. Dalton Schultz was the starter that season but the Cowboys moved on from him. Schoonmaker, out of the University of Michigan, was expected to be an excellent blocking and pass-catching tight end. Instead it was Ferguson who stood out as a secure target over the middle while Schoonmaker struggled. The former Wolverine only had 27 receptions for 241 yards and one touchdown last season. He hasn't proven worthy of a second round investment. The Ferguson contract shows the Cowboys front office is admitting defeat on Schoonmaker. He has two years left on his rookie deal and still has a chance to prove himself, but Ferguson has taken the mantle as the primary tight end. It will take an injury or catastrophic shift if Dallas was to ever view Schoonmaker as a good pick. It's a rare miss for a front office that has drafted some elite talent. MORE: Cowboys' Jaydon Blue shows off one-handed catch in pursuit of starting running back role
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LeBron James and Maverick Carter were seen with Nikola Jokic's agent
There has been a lot of talk lately that LeBron James, one way or another, is on his way out as a member of the Los Angeles Lakers and that they will look to essentially replace him with another superstar within the next couple of years. The belief is that the Lakers will try to go after either Giannis Antetokounmpo or Nikola Jokić next summer or during the summer of 2027. They reportedly want to keep a lot of salary cap space free for that purpose, which has led some to feel that they will essentially punt the next season or two and not try to win the NBA championship during that time. On his Instagram account, Misko Raznatovic, Jokic's agent, posted a photo of him with James and James' business manager, Maverick Carter, along with a cryptic caption. 'The summer of 2025 is the perfect time to make big plans for the fall of 2026!' This will undoubtedly spark speculation about James' future beyond the next handful of months. There have already been many rumors that he will eventually ask the Lakers to trade him soon, even though he exercised his player option for the 2025-26 season. Jokic, the three-time NBA MVP, who many still feel is the best basketball player in the world, can opt out of his current contract in the 2027 offseason. He just became the third player in league history to average a triple-double for an entire season, but he lost out on the 2024-25 regular-season MVP award to the Oklahoma City Thunder's Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. This article originally appeared on LeBron Wire: LeBron James and Maverick Carter were seen with Nikola Jokic's agent


New York Times
8 minutes ago
- New York Times
Giants to promote pitching prospect Carson Whisenhunt for debut Monday vs. Pirates
SAN FRANCISCO — With their rotation in a bind and the losses beginning to pile up, the San Francisco Giants will seek a boost from their top pitching prospect on Monday. The team will promote left-hander Carson Whisenhunt from Triple-A Sacramento to make his major-league debut with a home start against the Pittsburgh Pirates. Advertisement 'We've been waiting for this for a little bit now,' Giants manager Bob Melvin said following the Giants' 5-3 loss on Sunday that capped the New York Mets' three-game sweep. 'We thought maybe he'd be here last year, too. With what's gone on here … there's a need for it. It'll be exciting to see him pitch.' What's gone on will have to change quickly for the Giants to stay in the National League playoff picture. They've lost nine of 11, and their rotation is down to three healthy and established pitchers — All-Star right-hander Logan Webb, All-Star left-hander Robbie Ray and 42-year-old right-hander Justin Verlander — after right-hander Landen Roupp was placed on the 15-day injured list with elbow inflammation and erratic right-hander Hayden Birdsong LaLooshed himself to Triple-A Sacramento. So the Giants will turn to Whisenhunt, a fringe top-100 prospect who was widely considered the best collegiate left-hander in his 2022 MLB Draft class before a positive test for a performance-enhancing substance resulted in a suspension that caused him to miss his junior season at East Carolina University. The Giants thought they got a steal when they selected Whisenhunt in the second round, and although he didn't post overpowering numbers in the upper minors, his changeup consistently grades out as a plus major-league pitch. Whisenhunt, 24, compiled a 4.42 ERA in 18 starts while spending his second season in the Pacific Coast League, which tends to warp most pitching statistics. His progress could be measured in a walk rate (2.6 per nine innings) that he nearly halved from the previous year. He's also striking out fewer batters, though (7.9 per nine innings, down from 11.6 in 2024). The Giants won't expect Whisenhunt to dominate. They'll be happy to receive five or six competitive innings one day after relying on a bullpen game against the Mets. Giants catcher Patrick Bailey, a fellow North Carolina native, said he's confident Whisenhunt will have what it takes to compete. Advertisement 'I'm very excited for him,' Bailey said. 'Awesome dude, awesome player. I think he'll be ready. He's got really good stuff. Obviously, he's got the plus-plus changeup, and I hear the fastball command is getting better and he's throwing some different breaking balls. It's well deserved.' The Giants could air a Carson special Monday night. They didn't use Whisenhunt's former Sacramento rotation mate, right-hander Carson Seymour, in Sunday's bullpen game. So he'd be available to back up Whisenhunt. 'It just depends on how efficient he is,' Melvin said. The bullpen game — which included two home runs off right-hander Randy Rodríguez after he'd allowed just one in his first 43 appearances — wasn't the reason the Giants dropped their series finale against the Mets. The Giants didn't get any offensive production outside of two home runs from third baseman Matt Chapman and, continuing a cruel theme, went hitless in seven at-bats with runners in scoring position. Mets closer Edwin Diaz struck out Willy Adames and Chapman to strand the bases loaded in the ninth, concluding a series in which the Giants went 0-for-23 with runners in scoring position. According to research by NBC Sports Bay Area, it was the first time since 1931 that the Giants played a series in which they had at least 20 at-bats with runners in scoring position and failed to get a hit in any of them. The tragicomic detail: They would've been credited with one in the third inning Sunday when Adames failed to check his swing and sent a roller up the third-base line. But Heliot Ramos' base-running foibles continued. He got hung up between second and third, and Mets third baseman Ronny Mauricio tagged him to complete a fielder's choice. Of course, there isn't much Whisenhunt can do to alleviate the Giants' most persistent problem this season. The best he can do is keep the team in the game. He's coming off a shortened outing last Sunday against Oklahoma City in which he threw 68 pitches while allowing a run in 3 2/3 innings, but he had an earlier run of four consecutive seven-inning starts and twice earned PCL pitcher of the week honors. On July 12, Whisenhunt represented the Giants in the All-Star Futures Game in Atlanta and retired both batters he faced. Advertisement The Giants must make space on the 40-man and active roster for Whisenhunt, who was scratched from his start for Sacramento on Saturday night and added to the major-league taxi squad. After Sunday's game, there was a locker in the Giants clubhouse with a No. 88 jersey hanging in it. A duffel bag and a pair of dimpled, ostrich leather boots signified Whisenhunt's arrival. Roupp, another fellow North Carolina native who brings a strong boot game to the clubhouse, has competition now. 'I've seen him since we competed against each other in college,' Roupp said. 'I'm excited. I think it's past due. He's been throwing pretty well this year and threw well last year. 'Everybody knows his changeup is really good, but the other pitches are coming around, too.' The Giants need their offense to come around if they hope to remain relevant in September and beyond. But they also need to stabilize a pitching staff that has thrown the most bullpen innings of any team since the All-Star break. Chapman said he has no doubt that club president Buster Posey will remain an active buyer as Thursday's trade deadline approaches. 'It sucks to lose 9 of 11 and slip out of the standings a little bit, but we're still right there,' Chapman said. 'We'll play a lot of the teams that are right in front of us and right in the thick of it with us. Buster has made it clear: We go out and get Rafi (Rafael Devers), and it makes sense to continue to try to improve this team for this year and the foreseeable future. So I think we expect to add and to continue to get better and to continue to make a push to make the playoffs.'