PDA

View Full Version : VW "G-Grind" camshaft...



Banzai240
10-21-2003, 11:01 AM
Can someone with some VW background please fill me/us in on exactly WHAT justification was used to make the "G-grind" VW cam legal for IT engines??? The information would be most useful in answering some questions that have arrisen recently.

Thanks for the help,


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

SamITC85
10-21-2003, 01:02 PM
From what I have heard, is that someone came up with a factory parts list that had the G Grind cam on it. The cam itself was on the European GTI's that were made in the late 70's supposedly. Somehow it was listed as a manufactures replacement part for the stock cam that came in the 1.6's. Hope this helps.

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit
#85 GP Scirocco on the way
#11 GP Scirocco on the way

Knestis
10-21-2003, 02:56 PM
I recall there being some confusion re: the difference between a "supercede" and an "equivalent" part number.

This is a GREAT example of how the same set of rules and procedures can get applied differently, influenced by context.

K

Bill Miller
10-21-2003, 05:03 PM
Darin,

First off, it's only legal in the ITC 1.6 motors. I was told by someone in Denver (at the time), that documentation was provided that showed it to be a superceding part for the no longer available stock 1.6 cam.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-21-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...that documentation was provided that showed it to be a superceding part for the no longer available stock 1.6 cam.



If someone could provide me with that information it would be most useful. (By the way, this has nothing to do with VWs, but rather a similiar situation for another brand...)

Thanks,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Bill Miller
10-21-2003, 08:57 PM
You should be able to get that from someone in Club Racing at Topeka. I suspect that Jeremy should have access to that information. I would certainly hope that that kind of stuff is kept on file.

Or, you could always contact VWoA and do a little research. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif I can probably get the part #'s for the cams.

And why don't you just tell us what you're looking at, maybe someone has the information about the other car that you're looking for.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

theenico
10-22-2003, 01:47 AM
The question wouldn't possibly have to do with ITC 510's would it http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif .
Anyway, in talking to some older racers who ran Sciroccos in showroom back in the late '70s, they said the G-grind came in the 1977 Scirocco or at least VWoA provided documentation saying it did. Bill has the right idea for finding out for sure.
Now if only someone could get Nissan/Datsun to supercede some part #'s...

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

Peter Olivola
10-22-2003, 08:46 AM
{sarcasm}

Oh, you mean the same era when Jo Hoppen was running the VW racing programs in the U.S. as well as the Porsche programs? The same era some of us remember for the 924 sunroof fiasco?

{/sarcasm}


Originally posted by theenico:
Anyway, in talking to some older racers who ran Sciroccos in showroom back in the late '70s, they said the G-grind came in the 1977 Scirocco or at least VWoA provided documentation saying it did. Bill has the right idea for finding out for sure.

Banzai240
10-22-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And why don't you just tell us what you're looking at, maybe someone has the information about the other car that you're looking for.

Oh, that's JUST what we need are another 50 opinions to confuse the issue even more! (said in a very light hearted, jovial tone! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

Bill Miller
10-22-2003, 05:53 PM
Not sure what all the secrecy is about, but as I said, it's my understanding that factory documentation was supplied indicating that it was a superceding part.

Since it's a different marque, I'm not sure what value having the actual documentation is. Get that documentation for the car you're working on.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-22-2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Not sure what all the secrecy is about, but as I said, it's my understanding that factory documentation was supplied indicating that it was a superceding part.

No secrecy, just focused and don't need a debate over this.

As Nico indicated, there is a request letter in the ITAC's consideration right now requesting a specific cam be allowed for the ITC 510. I haven't finished my research, and don't want to get anyone all riled up over things until I have the facts...

Again, the only reason I looked into the VW is to find precedence on this matter, not to get it done, but just to see WHAT and HOW things were done in the past.

That's it...

Ryan Williams
10-22-2003, 09:25 PM
As Bill Miller stated, the camshaft for the VW 1.6 Liter engine was superceded by VW camshaft 049-109-101-G (ie G Grind) as the original 1.6L cam was NLA. VW Microfiche 1-1081-MDD79-80 should show this change in camshaft.

A Judgement of the Court of SCCA Appeals, 93-60-MW (Travis Townsley vs. SOM), dated December 22, 1993, found that the VW G Grind camshaft was legal for the 1.6L engine through the year of 1980. This decision was based on homologation forms from Volkswagen Germany.

You will need similar type of homologation from the particular manufacturer of the car in question. Regards, Ryan Williams.

Banzai240
10-22-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Ryan Williams:
As Bill Miller stated, the camshaft for the VW 1.6 Liter engine was superceded by VW camshaft 049-109-101-G (ie G Grind) as the original 1.6L cam was NLA. VW Microfiche 1-1081-MDD79-80 should show this change in camshaft.

A Judgement of the Court of SCCA Appeals, 93-60-MW (Travis Townsley vs. SOM), dated December 22, 1993, found that the VW G Grind camshaft was legal for the 1.6L engine through the year of 1980. This decision was based on homologation forms from Volkswagen Germany.

As I understand it, the ruling in 1993 was for a SS car, not an IT car (which doesn't make much sense, since by 1993 the VWs wouldn't have been eligible for SS??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif ), but regardless of this ruling, if this is a superseded part number, then I it is CLEARLY an illegal piece in IT. Let me tell you why I believe this.

This part may be listed as a "supersession" or "replacement" part on some VW microfiche, but that in itself doesn't allow IT cars to utilize it. Take a look at the spec line for these cars (ITC - '75-80 Rabbits and Sciroccos)... There is something pretty important missing...


ITCS 17.1.4.C Specifications -
... Parts or assemblies which the manufacturer lists in factory service manuals or parts guides for a particular model which supersede or replace original parts or assemblies are permitted. Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies must be supplied to the Club Racing Department and the appropriate part numbers listed on the particular model's specification line.

So, anyone care to explain NOW how this part is legal???

One might argue that because the first sentance of the rule mentions both "supersede" and "replacement", yet the second sentance only says that "superseded" parts must be documented on the spec line, that since this is a "replacement" piece, spec line documentation isn't required...

On the other hand, since the first sentance uses "supersede" and "replacement" interchangably ("supercede or replace"), then one could argue that they are both encompased in the word "superseding" of the second sentance, therefore requiring documentation of either situation...

I see no way that this allowance would stand up to an appeal in IT based on this. Unless someone can clearly prove that this camshaft was installed in US bound VW Rabbits AND Sciroccos at some point in time between the years 1975 to 1980, there is no grounds for the update/backdate clause either...

That's what the evidence shows. I have more information coming (it just happens to be contained in the same documentation that I have coming for the Datsun research, since the person compiling it has been researching this for some time) that includes the aforementioned SOM ruling on the VW, so I'll have that document to review as well, and perhaps that will shed some more concrete light on the subject. Until that happens, however, I find it interesting how many people want rules that are more clear, but then choose to build cars based on he said/she said, and simply take people's word for what is and is not allowed.

I'm interested to hear the responses to this so please feel free. These are just the "facts" as I have found them. There is surely more infomation out there that may help further explain this. I just hope it's not more of this "well, such and such has run that cam for years and the person they bought their car from said these were legal..." Kind of hard to swallow given a healthy understanding of the rules...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 23, 2003).]

Ryan Williams
10-23-2003, 11:39 AM
Darin, the Judgement of the SCCA Court of Appeals 93-60-MW (Travis Townsley vs SOM)was based on an ITB Volkswagen (1.6L engine). In 1993, the 1.6L engine was classified in ITB.

The documentation used by the Court of Appeals included the Volkswagen parts microfiche for the 1975 to 1980 cars, plus homologation forms from Volkswagen Germany.

The subject camshaft was found to be a legal part for 1975 through 1980 Volkswagen by the SCCA Court of Appeals.

I have the February 1994 Fastrack (page F-09)that documents this judgement. The subject camshaft is legal in the ITC 1975 through 1980 1.6L Volkswagens, and it is no longer an issue of protest or debate. Regards, Ryan.

Joe Harlan
10-23-2003, 11:54 AM
Ryan, I may be wrong here but. If memory serves me a decission by the COA is only good through the endd of that calender year. At which point it is up to the Comp-Bod to correct the rule. The book clearly states that if the part is a superceed then it needs to be in the spec line. I think this will cause a lot of spec line additions on older cars but that is the rule. I would take the information you have which is great stuff and put it together to request that part number be added to the spec line as stated in the book...Goodluck.

Banzai240
10-23-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Ryan Williams:
The subject camshaft was found to be a legal part for 1975 through 1980 Volkswagen by the SCCA Court of Appeals.

I have the February 1994 Fastrack (page F-09)that documents this judgement. The subject camshaft is legal in the ITC 1975 through 1980 1.6L Volkswagens, and it is no longer an issue of protest or debate. Regards, Ryan.



But WHY is it legal? Was this camshaft delivered in any '75-'80 US bound PRODUCTION Sciroccos and/or Rabbits, or is it simply listed as a superseded or replacement part? THESE are the details I need to research the Datsun case... I'm not trying to conduct a VW witch-hunt here, I'm trying to serve a portion of the membership who have a legitimate request and deserve to have it followed up on...

Thanks for the information...
Darin

Ryan Williams
10-23-2003, 02:09 PM
Darin & Joe, It is my understanding that the original VW 1.6L camshaft was replaced by the VW "G" Grind camshaft by Volkswagen. Bill Miller may be able to offer more insight, but I understand that if I went to a VW dealer and asked for a 1.6L camshaft that I would be given the 049-109-101-G camshaft as the original 1.6L camshaft is NLA. Evidently this was documented in the homologation forms provided by Volkswagen German for the US cars, and this homologation was the basis for the legality of the usage of the 049-109-101-G camshaft in the ITC Volkswagens.

If you are pursuing legality of another marque camshaft for a particular class, then you will need documentation and homologation from that marque or manufacturer.

This is the extent of my knowledge about the VW 049-109-101-G camshaft and the process about its legality in the VW ITC engines. I now run a VW Production Wabbit, so I don't have any interest in this topic beyond this point. Good luck with your pursuit, Ryan.

Greg Amy
10-23-2003, 03:40 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...anyone care to explain NOW how this part is legal???</font>

To the strictest interpretation of the rules, Darin has a point. However, when reality is in effect, that rule becomes a maintenance nightmare when taken to the extreme he implies.

Having been a Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche/Mazda parts manager in my former years, I can tell you that manufacturers consistently and regularly "supercede" part numbers with new ones. Typically, that part is superceded due to a manufacturer replacement (Bosch spark plugs instead of NGK, Timkin instead of Torrington bearings), an engineering change to accomodate a wider variety of vehicles (slight change to a lamp to fit on the Rabbit *and* Scirocco), an engineering change to fix a problem with suitability or longevity (adding a gusset to a motor mount bracket that's cracking), or a major engineering change to fix a problem (recall parts.) Regardless of the reason for the part number supercession, the manufacturer regards that subsequent part as an acceptable bolt-on replacement part for the application and will in all cases likely discontinue availability of the old part.

As I said, Part numbers are superceded on a regular basis. Trust me, this is a very common practice. If we were required to keep track of, and maintain a list of, all superceded part numbers and their progression, we would need a full-time Advisory Committee member for each and every manufacturer.

Instead, we trust the manufacturer to provide suitable replacement parts without major engineering changes unless required, and frankly it works out for everyone. Don't forget that all replacement parts provided by the manufacturer have to meet the same safety and emissions standards it did when new, plus they'll need to keep their over-the-counter customers happy with the performance of those parts (i.e., they won't give the Scirocco a lumpy idle or higher emissions).

Keeping in mind that there is no motivation for any manufacturer to "update" the performance on any replacmeent parts after the car is gone from the showroom, I think you can see that any underhanded replacements are far too inconsequential to be significant. Somehow I think VW has no interest in furthering the racing success of a 1976 ITC VW Scirocco in SCCA Improved touring competition.

I don't know the facts about this particular camshaft; hell for all I know Hoppen could have pulled a fast one. However, short of getting someone to own up to it there will be no proof of wrongdoing, and frankly I doubt anyone really gives a rat's ass. If you can go to the parts microfiche at your local Volkswagen dealer and prove that "this part number" is the VW-approved replacement camshaft for the ITC Scirocco, and it happens to have the same specs as the European G-grind cam (which really wasn't that hot of a camshaft to begin with) then you're done and there's nothing else to argue about.

Same goes for the ITC 510: go to a dealer, have them look up the part and hand one to you over the counter. Done. It's the Nissan-approved replacement part for that car and there's nothing you can do about it. It's totally irrelevant what the specs are, it's totally irrelevant what the part number is. It's totally irrelevant if it's the camshaft that Bob Sharp used to win the 1975 GT-2 Championship.

What is relevant is that it's the manufacturer-supplied replacement part, which meets both the technical limit and even the spirit of the rules.

GA

Banzai240
10-23-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by grega:
What is relevant is that it's the manufacturer-supplied replacement part, which meets both the technical limit and even the spirit of the rules.

GA

NOT according to the CB/BoD or whoever keeps denying the 510 the allowance to use the only available factory replacement camshaft as listed in the Nissan manufacturers parts guide. The "spirit" of the rules doesn't mean squat. The WORDING of the rules does. The rules clearly state that, with the exception of a direct update/backdate, any replacement or otherwise superseded part MUST be listed on the vehicles spec line. I'm going by the book...

I still find it ironic that, with classifications, you all scream about transparency and a strict method of determining specs, but then you turn around and want to start quoting the "spirit" of the rule? I'm not quite sure how the "spirit" of "must be listed on the specification line for that vehicle" can have any other meaning other than what it says...

But, I degress... Thanks for the further information. I now have a copy of the fastrack from February 1994 and I'm working on getting a copy of CoA ruling 93-60-MW...

I have no interest in this issue (VW) other than to make sure that this guys request (for the 510) gets proper attention and, if it's to be denied, has been thoroughly investigated to assure that there are grounds for denial... So far, it looks as though that shouldn't be the case...

Take care,
Darin

PS: By the way... you guys wanted this ITAC stuff more out in the open, so here you go!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif Granted, I'm just one of the members, and am pretty much on my own on this, but it's NOT behind closed doors!! Its that better??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Greg Amy
10-23-2003, 04:23 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...any replacement or otherwise superseded part MUST be listed on the vehicles spec line.</font>

If you adhere to that strict interpretation of the rules, then I can tell you by direct knowledge and experience that virtually every (and I do mean EVERY) replacement part in all Volkswagens, Audis, Porsches, Mazdas, FoMoCo (I was a FoMoCo parts manager too), and Nissans (my ITS car) are totally illegal for use in an Improved Touring car. I will bet you a dollar to a donut that there is virtually no single replacement part in any of those cars that is the same part number as what was installed at the factory.

I can also tell you as a point of fact that I have personally installed parts into my ITS NX2000 that were superceded replacement parts that, by your definition, are illegal. I can also point out you hundreds of replacement parts on your 240SX that are, by your definition, illegal, assuming you've replaced common items such as bearings, gaskets, filters, seals, etc.

Your windmill, sir: commence tilting...

Bill Miller
10-23-2003, 06:05 PM
Darin,

Two things.

One, I didn't think you were a person that looked at the absolute nth degree of a definition. And two, I thought you said it was up to the requestor to do the research, not the ITAC.

Have you had a change of heart? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-23-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
One, I didn't think you were a person that looked at the absolute nth degree of a definition.

I don't, just the plain and simple, or "untortured" definition... The nth degree would be to require EVERY component of the car that wasn't still the original part number to be listed... I'm just suggesting that perhaps the important pieces should be "per the rule"... Camshafts get protested... Widget support brackets, seals, and bearings typically do not...



<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I thought you said it was up to the requestor to do the research, not the ITAC.</font>

That wasn't me... it was George. Does it appear to you that I mind doing this kind of research?? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

I think it's my responsibility as an ITAC member to be sure I understand the issue and as many factors involved as I can before making a decision. Some cases that's easier to do than others. I'm just trying to do the best I can to serve the members of the IT community, and this was an issue (the 510 camshaft) that I saw needed further investigation...

I appreciate all the help I've gotten from our members, both in the racing community and from our CB Liasons, BoD members, and Jeremy, the Technical manager... All have helped to put pieces in place. I got a note today saying that our next batch of letters has 30 pages of information concerning this issue, so I'm hoping that that, combined with what I've gathered so far, will be enough to make an informed decision...

I'll let you know...
Darin

Bill Miller
10-23-2003, 09:08 PM
What's interesting is that the VW camshafts don't have the p/n on the cam itself. There are some markings and numbers, but no full part number. I don't know anything about the Datsuns in this regard.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-24-2003, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
That wasn't me... it was George. Does it appear to you that I mind doing this kind of research?? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

It has been brought to my attention that the above sentance may have given some people the wrong impression of George... I shouldn't have put the two sentances together, because they relay the wrong message. The way I wrote this makes George out to be someone who isn't willing to do research, which is NOT the case at all. As a matter of fact, he contacted Nissan motorsports and has been working with me on this the whole time. My comment was simply to correct Bill's comment that it was me that said that the requestor should do their own research (which I never said, but do believe, right along with George, whole heartedly), and then the second part was to make light of the fact that this particular issue has seen me on a relentless quest for an answer. The two sentance really had NOTHING to do with each other, and any implications that George isn't willing to do research were completely an unfortunate result of mistakenly placing the two sentances together.

I assure you all that George is very actively working for the good of the IT community, and I appologize to him for any misconceptions that this post may have brought about...

That being said, I'd like to reitterate what George has said in another post, and that is that if you want to have your requests taken seriously and want your case to have merrit, you MUST provide the appropriate documentation and send us (the CB/ITAC/BoD) the information that YOU have to back your position... You are, after all, often the experts on the topic...

Thanks,


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 24, 2003).]

eh_tony!!!
10-24-2003, 02:38 AM
A few questions here..

Why don't the datsun competitors use the superceeded cam and appeal any protest? If one could show that the VW superceeded option was approved, but not in-fact listed on the spec line in the following year's GCR, then I would feel that precedent has been set. Didn't the G-grind cam become legal through successful appeal anyway?

While your on the 510, I was tolkd some years back that the '210' heads were superceeded by the 'W52' heads as well. The later having roughly 1/2 the combustion chamber volume of the first. Don't know if anyone has first hand knowledge, but it would be an interesting point.

Bill Miller
10-24-2003, 06:02 AM
Tony,

That's one of the best arguements yet for a casebook. But it does beg another question. If the CoA ruled this item (VW G-grind cam) legal, why was it not listed on the spec line in the '94 ITCS? Can the CB overrule the CoA? Would the same 'end of year' time limit apply to someone who had sent their money in for an official ruling? (ok, that's three questions).

Tony,

As far as the Datsun head issue, it may be a superceding part, but I doubt that a head w/ 1/2 the CC volume is going to be able to make the CR limit.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Harry
10-24-2003, 07:29 AM
I submitted the request to have the 510 cam superseded for several reasons. The most important one was that the new cam I used in '97 is no longer legal today because the SCCA Competition Board knows it and all my competitors knew it because I advertised the coating sponsors all over my car. The cam was coated.
The truth is that I only listed the SCCA Appeals # 93-60-MW (supplied to me by Ryan Williams)in my request stating that VW set the Precedence to use a superseded cam as the stock cam was NLA. I made no sugestion that the "G" cam is illegal or be denied as the legal cam.

The "G" cam represented a change from 0.405 lift to 0.423 & the duration went fron 225 degrees to 283 degrees.

In my request the cams lift would remain the same as the late 510 cam and there would only be a + & - 8 degrees duration adjustment. My main reason is to have the ability to at least be able to use a new camshaft. The "G" Cam would still have more lift and duration.

The data below if correct does show that the ITC VW's benefited by a 0.018" lift increase and 58 degrees duration improvement.

http://www.autotech.com/cam_vt.htm

The following data is listed on Autotech site. As to it's accuracy I am only assuming it is correct.

8 VALVE CAMSHAFTS
Perhaps the most important thing to remember when searching for that "perfect camshaft" is this:
Don't be mislead by the numbers! The lift and duration of a camshaft are not the only features that make a cam behave the way it does. Things like ramp profile, lobe center, and nose shape all affect a cam's behavior. It is virtually impossible to determine exactly how a cam will perform, or where it makes power, just by looking at the numbers. Ultimately, all of a camshaft's design aspects play a role in how it will perform.


Solid Lifter Camshafts

From 1975 to the middle of 1980, the specs of the original cam were 0.405 inches lift with 225 degrees duration at .050" check clearance. On later cars, including the Rabbit GTi and Jetta GLi models, the cams were made more docile for pollution control and had a lift of only 0.387 inches, with slightly less duration than earlier.

European GTI Camshaft
What we consider to be the best all-around street cam for solid lifter engines. Originally used on the European Golf 1 GTi, this cam is called the European "G" cam (is also sometimes called the "N" cam) featuring a 0.423" lift and a duration of 283 degrees (225 degrees at 0.050" check clearance). Power gains are seen from 2000 up to 6500 rpm, netting an 8 to 10 horsepower gain. SportTuned valve springs are not required, but are highly recommended for the best top-end performance.
Lifetime warranty from Autotech.

European GTi Camshaft 10.109.423 $119.95

I did however request that if approved I wanted it listed on the spec line.

I do feel that I should refrain from any additional comments.
I have added my email address if anyone wishes to contact me directly.
Regards,
Harry

[email protected]



[This message has been edited by Harry (edited October 24, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-24-2003, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by eh_tony!!!:
A few questions here..

Why don't the datsun competitors use the superceeded cam and appeal any protest?

Tony and Bill,
All good questions... Basically, I don't know the answer. I suppose they could, and perhaps they will. I'm looking into the cam issue specifically, because we have a request to do so in the form of a letter sent to the CB, so it's an official agenda item.

Speaking strictly as a competitor, if I was racing a 510, I'd likely do those things... But, the gentleman who wrote the request is insistant on doing this by the book to avoid any at the track issues...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Banzai240
10-24-2003, 07:51 PM
OK everyone,

I've made an official request to the CB to have them look into the issue of adding the correct VW part number for the "G"-grind (or "N"-grind, since it officially supersedes the "G") to the specficiation line for the appropriate VW ITC cars. The documentation exists, and there are individuals there who were involved in the original CoA decision, so I have every confidence that the appropriate action will take place. It is my hope that this will close the book, and the questions, about the legitimacy of this allowance for the VWs once and for all.

The 510 cam issue is still being discussed and data is being gathered. I'll let you know what is happening with this as soon as the data is in place.

Thank you for the information and patience in dealing with this. The opportunity was there for this to get out of hand, and I think we all handled the situation in a way that shows we are human, but also shows we have class... Working together is great...

Thanks again.

Sincerely,



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

badal
10-24-2003, 08:14 PM
Why don't the datsun competitors use the superceeded cam and appeal any protest? If one could show that the VW superceeded option was approved, but not in-fact listed on the spec line in the following year's GCR, then I would feel that precedent has been set. Didn't the G-grind cam become legal through successful appeal anyway?

As a Datsun driver, I would prefer use a legal part. If it is not listed, it is not legal. I think it is a whole lot easier to verify it before hand.

A few years ago I drove a 2002. There was an error in the IT spec book as far as the valve size. The BMW shop manual showed two different intake valve sizes, for the two types of head. A competitor protested me as a "test case". He did this about an hour prior to the race, when I was working on the car. The incompetent steward informed me I had to go to the tower to discuss. He then said I could not race as I was under protest! The protest ended up being withdrawn, but it was a major hassle. Had I been aware of the error beforehand, it would have been far easier to correct it then.

Harry, and Darin, thanks for trying to clear this up.

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

theenico
10-27-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Harry:
The "G" cam represented a change from 0.405 lift to 0.423 & the duration went fron 225 degrees to 283 degrees.

The "G" Cam would still have more lift and duration.

The data below if correct does show that the ITC VW's benefited by a 0.018" lift increase and 58 degrees duration improvement.

http://www.autotech.com/cam_vt.htm

The following data is listed on Autotech site. As to it's accuracy I am only assuming it is correct.

8 VALVE CAMSHAFTS

Solid Lifter Camshafts

From 1975 to the middle of 1980, the specs of the original cam were 0.405 inches lift with 225 degrees duration at .050" check clearance. On later cars, including the Rabbit GTi and Jetta GLi models, the cams were made more docile for pollution control and had a lift of only 0.387 inches, with slightly less duration than earlier.

European GTI Camshaft
What we consider to be the best all-around street cam for solid lifter engines. Originally used on the European Golf 1 GTi, this cam is called the European "G" cam (is also sometimes called the "N" cam) featuring a 0.423" lift and a duration of 283 degrees (225 degrees at 0.050" check clearance). Power gains are seen from 2000 up to 6500 rpm, netting an 8 to 10 horsepower gain. SportTuned valve springs are not required, but are highly recommended for the best top-end performance.
Lifetime warranty from Autotech.

European GTi Camshaft 10.109.423 $119.95

I did however request that if approved I wanted it listed on the spec line.

I do feel that I should refrain from any additional comments.
I have added my email address if anyone wishes to contact me directly.
Regards,
Harry

[email protected]



[This message has been edited by Harry (edited October 24, 2003).]

In your post you state that the g-cam has 58 degrees more duration. If you actually read the information that you posted you would know that both cams have the same duration (225 @ .050 lift). So the G's only additional benefit is .018" lift. Based on the CORRECT information from the other part of your post the 510 cam is probably very similar and should be allowed. In the future, though, please be sure of your accuracy when you post because it can be confusing. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

Geo
10-27-2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by theenico:
Based on the CORRECT information from the other part of your post the 510 cam is probably very similar and should be allowed.


ONLY if it's officially labeled a recplacement or supersession by Nissan.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
10-27-2003, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
ONLY if it's officially labeled a recplacement or supersession by Nissan.

Uh-Oh... now we're going to get into semantics again...

What if it's the ONLY part available from Nissan for that series motor? Again, if I walk into Nissan, and tell them to order me a stock cam for a 1968-1973 L16, and they tell me that there are several part numbers listed for that series, but four are NLA and only one part number is listed as active, is that not the "official" factory replacement for this car???

Also, can someone with some 510 experience please look at this microfiche and tell me which part numbers were the ones that were imported to the US?? I'm thinking that it's the ones where there is a "Y" in the "ICA-N" column, but I can't find a key to tell for sure...

http://www.carfiche.com/510/1/f06.gif

Thanks,

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Geo
10-27-2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Uh-Oh... now we're going to get into semantics again...

What if it's the ONLY part available from Nissan for that series motor?


Then it's not a replacement or supersession part. I think that's pretty clear. I don't see a semantics issue here.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
Again, if I walk into Nissan, and tell them to order me a stock cam for a 1968-1973 L16, and they tell me that there are several part numbers listed for that series, but four are NLA and only one part number is listed as active, is that not the "official" factory replacement for this car???


Easy. It's not legal.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-27-2003, 11:39 PM
Sorry.

Computer stuttered.


[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 27, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-27-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Then it's not a replacement or supersession part...

You'll have to explain that one for me George... because it IS THE replacement part... I've NEVER see the words "replacement part" shown in a manufacturers parts guide... If they discontinued a part number, but offer another in it's place, for that application, isn't the "replacement" pretty much given??? That's the semantical problem I see here, because when you look at a list of part numbers in a parts guide, it doesn't necessarily say "supersede" or "replacement"... sometimes it just lists a different part number next to the application and shows the original as NLA...

Is the parts guide required to be THAT specific?? If so, then just the differences in manufacturers parts guides would make this an inequitable rule...

It is my contention that if the manufacture has superseded, or otherwise replaced the original part number with something else, for the same application, then that's a legal part...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Geo
10-28-2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
If they discontinued a part number, but offer another in it's place, for that application, isn't the "replacement" pretty much given??? That's the semantical problem I see here, because when you look at a list of part numbers in a parts guide, it doesn't necessarily say "supersede" or "replacement"... sometimes it just lists a different part number next to the application and shows the original as NLA...


I agree. If the part is listed on a factory parts list it's legal. But if it's not, it's not legal. I don't care if it fits. Make sense?


Originally posted by Banzai240:
Is the parts guide required to be THAT specific??


Only specific enough to list the part in a parts list for the car.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
It is my contention that if the manufacture has superseded, or otherwise replaced the original part number with something else, for the same application, then that's a legal part...


I agree. If it's listed on a factory parts list.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
10-28-2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
If the part is listed on a factory parts list it's legal. But if it's not, it's not legal. I don't care if it fits. Make sense?

OK, back on the same page... I understand what you were saying, and agree..



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Harry
10-28-2003, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by theenico:
In your post you state that the g-cam has 58 degrees more duration. If you actually read the information that you posted you would know that both cams have the same duration (225 @ .050 lift). So the G's only additional benefit is .018" lift. Based on the CORRECT information from the other part of your post the 510 cam is probably very similar and should be allowed. In the future, though, please be sure of your accuracy when you post because it can be confusing. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



Nico,
Your 100% correct. I assure you it was an oversite & not intended.
My apology to all.
Harry

Bill Miller
10-28-2003, 06:47 AM
But from your earlier arguement Darin, it would have to be listed on the spec line of the car to be legal. And, while I'll have to research this, I don't think that it's a requirement that legal parts be available from the factory.

But as far as your scenario w/ the new part #, I would still think you'd need something in writing from Datsun/Nissan to the effect that this is the new part # and the old part # is NLA, possibly w/ the specs of the new part.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-28-2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But from your earlier arguement Darin, it would have to be listed on the spec line of the car to be legal. And, while I'll have to research this, I don't think that it's a requirement that legal parts be available from the factory.

But as far as your scenario w/ the new part #, I would still think you'd need something in writing from Datsun/Nissan to the effect that this is the new part # and the old part # is NLA, possibly w/ the specs of the new part.



Bill... You are correct, and based on our current rules, none of this has ever been in question with me. What we were trying to establish with the last set of posts what WHAT constituted a part that was eligible to be listed on the spec line... or, in other words, WHAT qualifies as a "supersede" or "replacement" piece...

The only document required by the ITCS is a "manufacturers parts guide", which would generally show the old part numbers and the new, and in some way indicate the availability.

DJ

Geo
10-28-2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But from your earlier arguement Darin, it would have to be listed on the spec line of the car to be legal.


While I agree with you Bill, I think that's something we need to change. As Greg pointed out, there are literally hundreds of parts on cars that are superceded. We could never list them all. Do we just list certain parts? I would think this would create a nightmare as well.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

theenico
10-28-2003, 09:01 AM
It sounds like we're all basically on the same page now. Has anyone heard anything from the powers that be i.e. the CB.

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited October 28, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-28-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
As Greg pointed out, there are literally hundreds of parts on cars that are superceded. We could never list them all. Do we just list certain parts...

Let's be reasonable here... Greg's example used EVERY concievable piece on the car. If you read further in the ITCS, you'll find coverage for the vast majority of small parts, or replaceable parts, such as seals, bearings, fasterners, etc... Of the pieces not covered there, what are considered "protestable" items? I know that isn't what the rules say, but if we listed all the items NOT covered by some rule in the ITCS as being allowed to be replaced, what items would we have? Of those items, what would someone bother to protest you over?

What changes would you (the general IT community "you" , not "you" George, though you are welcome to respond as well?? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ) recommend??? Do we drop the line requiring the piece be listed, and instead require that competitors have documentation to prove legality in the event of a protest??? I'd sure like to find a way to do this that could avoid the protest all together, but I suppose that's inevitable at some point...

Darin

Banzai240
10-28-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by theenico:
It sounds like we're all basically on the same page now. Has anyone heard anything from the powers that be i.e. the CB.

Gotta be a little patient guys... This only just got onto the ITAC's plate last month. It's on the CBs agenda for their next meeting, but I've requested that this matter remain open until all the documentation is in hand...

Darin

Bill Miller
10-28-2003, 10:46 PM
Darin,

Didn't the CB meet today (10/28)? I thought I read somewhere that they were going to have another meeting soon to discuss the GT4/5 situation?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-28-2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Didn't the CB meet today (10/28)?

I believe they at least had a conf. call. Bob Dowie (one of the two CB liasons to the ITAC) wrote to tell us that he would ask about PCA progress, discuss the superseded parts issue, and whatever else the CB had on their plate. Will let you know if anything comes up worth noting...

I too will be interested to hear what happens with GT4/5... Stay tuned...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Nigel Stu
10-30-2003, 10:53 AM
I've been watching this one and trying to get some info since not only do I have a 510, but I also work for Nissan. I received an email from one of the parts distribution centers yesterday. My contact came up with the following part numbers

13001-23000 used until July '71
Then it goes into a string of parts with the original part number being replaced by 13001-23000-SV then 13001-H2710 and finally 13001-H2700. These 3 part numbers are labeled as used since August '71.

My contact indicated that NONE of these parts are available now.

Not sure how much this info helps...

------------------
Ben
'71 510 - soon to be C'n in Central Div.

Banzai240
10-30-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Nigel Stu:
My contact indicated that NONE of these parts are available now.

Not sure how much this info helps...



Nigel,

Here is the information I need. If I came to you and asked to purchase a new camshaft for a 1968 to 1973 Datsun 510 w/ L16... WHAT part number is shown as available for this application? I need to know what the part number is that is currently available for this application. It doesn't have to be one that was ever used in a factory 510, just whatever Nissan currently offers for this application.

If you can get me some official documentation showing this information (copy/scan of the manufactures parts guide page showing the application and part numbers, letter on Nissan letterhead validating part numbers, availability, supersession, etc., or anything else officially documenting this situation), please e-mail it to me ASAP. [email protected]

This is the one piece of information that I'm having a hard time obtaining (because my local Nissan parts guys don't seem to know how to pull all this information together with their parts computers...)

Thanks,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg