Manual/power steering swap?

[wepsbee]

Before I screw this up completely I figured asking would be the best course.
It is my understanding that you can change things on your car as long as that
"thing" came as a stock OEM configuration. I would like to change my car from a power steering type to manual steering.
According to the factory manual the car was supplied both ways. Is it then OK for me to do the swap. Saves weight and has a couple of other benefits.

[Greg Amy]

According to the factory manual the car was supplied both ways. Is it then OK for me to do the swap.
Yes. Just ensure it was supplied both ways on the configuration of the classified car (e.g., Escort GT, not just "Escort", or are they all on the same spec line?)

GA

[wepsbee]

Yes. Just ensure it was supplied both ways on the configuration of the classified car (e.g., Escort GT, not just "Escort", or are they all on the same spec line?)

GA
All suspension and drivetrain the same. I will ensure the Escort and Escort GT came equipped with both types of steering.
Thanks

[Chip42]

The Escort GT has a varient of the MAzda BP 1.8L DOHC, it is not the same as the Escort 1.9L SOHC "spec racer ford" motor.

the GT (particularly the 1995 though other years may vary) came with power steering, no option for manual that I am aware of.

so you should continue to run the PS pump and rack. silly rule, but it is what it is.

[Greg Amy]

Chip, the spec line in ITA lists "Ford Escort GT/LX-E 1.8L 16V (91-95)" (the ITA car runs the Miata-family engine; we know this because my engineer did engine work for them).

Were any of the "Ford Escort GT/LX-E" variants available with manual racks? If so, he's legal to use them, yes?

GA

[Knestis]

Sho' 'nuff. The 1.8 and 1.9 shouldn't be on the same spec line. Another case of FITSLS - F'd Up IT Spec Line Syndrome.

K

[tderonne]

There's no 1.9 on the spec line.

All 1.8 Escorts came with power steering.

[Chip42]

beyond that an LX-E and GT are different body styles - if you have a GT you have a hatch, an LX-E is a sedan, so it doesn't matter if it came without PS, which it didn't. there was no 1995 LX-E, either.

it's analogous to the ITB Accord (88-91) where the 3 door has to run rear drums as an LX-i but the 2 door can run rear discs as an SE-i. I think it's possible that there are more ITB SE-i models than ever produced for sale in the USA by honda.

this isn't the place for it, but the rule to maintain PS is on the short list of things I'd abolish if I ruled the world.

[wepsbee]

Thanks for the info. Further checking has revealed the all Escort GT models came with PS. Oh well I tried.:shrug:

[erlrich]

beyond that an LX-E and GT are different body styles - if you have a GT you have a hatch, an LX-E is a sedan, so it doesn't matter if it came without PS, which it didn't. there was no 1995 LX-E, either.


Yeah, but to Greg's point - it doesn't matter if they are two different body styles; if they are on the same spec line of the GCR they're all one car for purposes of the rules. If you own a GT, but only the LX-E came with the manual steering option, you could put manual steering in your GT. In this case it sounds like the point is moot, since neither variation seems to have come with manual steering.

[Chip42]

Yeah, it doesn't matter if they are two different body styles; if they are on the same spec line of the GCR they're all one car for purposes of the rules.
I disagree. ITCS 9.1.3.C "Specifications" 2nd Paragraph:

updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring specification Line... Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.
so while they are on the same spec line, how can one create a combination of parts that was never offered for sale? as an example, an ITB 92-95 Civic DX was available as a 2, 3, or 4 door. all are on the same spec line, with the wheelbase differences noted per body style. manual steering was only available on the 3-door. by what you are saying, I would be able to use that rack on a 4 door, a different body style. I understand that they share a classification spec line but isn't that the same thing as creating a model that was not available for sale ion the US?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just asking as I have always read it as body style constrains options despite sharing a spec line with other bodies of the same trim level. what's right?

[wepsbee]

BTW The escort LX is also a hatchback.

[wepsbee]

There are a zillion 3 door hatchback Escorts. 99.9% are LX's.
Check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Escort_(North_America)

[JoshS]

Yeah, but to Greg's point - it doesn't matter if they are two different body styles; if they are on the same spec line of the GCR they're all one car for purposes of the rules.


I disagree.

I disagree too ... I'm with Chip. I actually confirmed this with respect to my own car.

If cars A and B are on the same spec line, but car A is available only as a sedan, but car B can be had as both a sedan and a hatchback, then the hatchback version of car B cannot use any parts only available on car A. However, a sedan version of car B can use anything from car A.

This might be a moot point with respect to power steering on the Escorts, it sounds like but let's be clear about what the rules say anyway.

[erlrich]

I disagree too ... I'm with Chip. I actually confirmed this with respect to my own car.

If cars A and B are on the same spec line, but car A is available only as a sedan, but car B can be had as both a sedan and a hatchback, then the hatchback version of car B cannot use any parts only available on car A. However, a sedan version of car B can use anything from car A.

I'll take your word for it Josh, since it sounds like you've actually been there done that. It was just always my understanding that all cars on a single spec line were considered the same for purposes of updating/backdating. Guess I was wrong.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correct, you were mistaken. Only cars of the same body type on the same line can be UD/BD. Since we removed the station wagon limitation, there may be some optins that only came on SW's that were not available on coupes or sedans of the same line. I bet Ford made Escort wagons in those years too.

[JeffYoung]

Where does it say this in the ITCS?

[JoshS]

Where does it say this in the ITCS?

See post #11 in this thread.


To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

[erlrich]

See post #11 in this thread.


To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

Interesting, that's exactly where I interpret it as saying that all cars on the same line may be updated/backdated - see the part I underlined. Josh, where did the ruling you refer to about your car come from? A protest/appeal, or compliance review?

[JoshS]

No, sorry, it was just a response to a letter. I agree that it could be interpreted multiple ways, which is why I sent my letter. But as I've thought about this many times over the past few years, I believe that the intent was the "no building a model that didn't exist" concept, which would be consistent with not exchanging parts across body types.

You also have to put it that line in the context of the spec lines as they have been written -- there are many, many examples of spec lines that contain multiple body types, even multiple "models." With your interpretation, it would seem that no such spec lines should ever have been written. Since they were, I conclude that your interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Really? It seems pretty specific to me.

"...updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type."

To be obvious:

A Porsche and a Mazda are different Makes.
A 944 and a 944S are different Models.
A sedan and a coupe are different Body types

So obviously a Porsche and a Mazda won't be on the same spec line but sedans and coupes and station wagons are often.

[JeffYoung]

I actually agree with the concept of not being allowed to build a model that doesn't exist, but this language makes me think Earl is correct:

To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

It suggests that all models on a spec line are treated as having the same make/model/body type when that probably is not technically the case.

I think a strict reading of the rule would allow you to use any component on a car so long as that part came on a car at some point during the years listed on the spec line.

The error or issue is like Kirk pointed out, in making mistakes in putting cars with dissimilar characteristics on the same line.


Interesting, that's exactly where I interpret it as saying that all cars on the same line may be updated/backdated - see the part I underlined. Josh, where did the ruling you refer to about your car come from? A protest/appeal, or compliance review?

[JoshS]

The error or issue is like Kirk pointed out, in making mistakes in putting cars with dissimilar characteristics on the same line.

It's a reasonable statement, but I still disagree.

There are two ways to approach this in the big picture:

1) Only list things together on a spec line that for which you intend to allow parts exchanges. If you don't want parts exchange, split out the spec lines, even though they otherwise have the same specs and weight.

2) Allow things with common specs and weight to share a spec line, but be specific about which things that share a spec line can exchange parts with each other.

Both are perfectly valid strategies, what we're arguing about is which one is embodied in the ITCS. And I say it's #2. The biggest problem with #1, if we want to disallow "making a model," would be that we'd have a LOT more spec lines than we have now, and if the weight is supposed to change for everything that shares specs, we have a lot more lines to update and therefore a lot more margin for error when editing. So if I was starting from scratch, I'd pick #2 anyway.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I actually agree with the concept of not being allowed to build a model that doesn't exist, but this language makes me think Earl is correct:

To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

It suggests that all models on a spec line are treated as having the same make/model/body type when that probably is not technically the case.

I think a strict reading of the rule would allow you to use any component on a car so long as that part came on a car at some point during the years listed on the spec line.

The error or issue is like Kirk pointed out, in making mistakes in putting cars with dissimilar characteristics on the same line.

I disagree. It says in summation: You can UD/BD ONLY when the car you are UD/BDing from on a single spec line is the same make, model, engine size and BODY TYPE of the car you are UD/BDing to.

[JeffYoung]

It kinda sorta says that, but the ultimate test seems to me to be "on the same spec line."

A better use of the word "and" in two places and I would agree with you 100%.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It kinda sorta says that, but the ultimate test seems to me to be "on the same spec line."

A better use of the word "and" in two places and I would agree with you 100%.

So if I told you this, what would you say?

To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

If you take out the other words (which only adds constraints to this, do you think it still reads per your interpretation?

[Chip42]

tracking #1278

sent a request for clarification of intent to the CRB. Josh, Jeff, etc.. you guys can sort this out on an upcoming Monday.

I didn't claim a side, but FWIW I prefer the restrictions of body type and trim, even to the point where we exclude available combinations if seen as necessary. this is IT, not prod. if we start to allow make a model within a trim level, the next step would be something like a ford escort LX-E wagon, which never existed in any form, ever.

while we're on the topic of crap speclines:

- ITA 01-03 mazda protege ES/LX. specline only shows the "5-lug" 4 wheel disc arrangement that the ES has, but the LS ONLY came with 4 bolt hubs, smaller disks, rear drums. same motor (FS-DE 2.0L)in both. and the 02-03 Protege5 is not classified, when it's the same, mechanically, as an ES.

-ITA 2002-2005 civic Si, bore and stroke are from the audi coupe quatro classified in the same issue of fastrack. the audi shows the dims from the honda.

-92-95 Civic DX is classified in ITA and ITB.:shrug: similarly the Del Sol S should wind up with the same classification as the 92-95 DX, and LX should be added.

- ITA Civic Del Sol Si is listed at 2330 while its engine mates the 92-95 civic Si and EX are 2305. the Si was recently fixed.

I could go on... anyone else?

[erlrich]

Josh, I totally agree with your assessment, I just tend to lean toward #1 as the preferred strategy. For what it's worth, I never considered the "To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring..." line as being the question; to me that clearly meant any car on a spec line could use any assembly from any other car on the same spec line. The sentence that muddied the waters IMO, was the one that reads "Additionally, it is not permitted to "create" a model or type...", bringing up the question of when you have actually created a new model/type of car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

to me that clearly meant any car on a spec line could use any assembly from any other car on the same spec line.

Which is true - but then you have to add in the parameters. Any car can swap with any car on the spec line as long as its the same make, model, body type and has the same sized engine.

[quadzjr]

So if I am reading thhis right Andy, Josh, and Chip believe that you are only allowed to UP/BD within body style within spec line which is in my line of thinking.

If you allow UP/BD within a spec line only and no reguard to body. That means a if I were to build an ITB mustang (spec line from 79-93).

I could take a 93 notchback, install a carburated 2.3L, with a 4speed tranny, and a 6 7/8" rear end?

or take a 79 hatch, intall a multiport EFI engine with the 5speed tranny, and the common 7.5" rear?

They are all within the same spec line...

[erlrich]

So if I am reading thhis right Andy, Josh, and Chip believe that you are only allowed to UP/BD within body style within spec line which is in my line of thinking.

If you allow UP/BD within a spec line only and no reguard to body. That means a if I were to build an ITB mustang (spec line from 79-93).

I could take a 93 notchback, install a carburated 2.3L, with a 4speed tranny, and a 6 7/8" rear end?

or take a 79 hatch, intall a multiport EFI engine with the 5speed tranny, and the common 7.5" rear?

They are all within the same spec line...

IMO if both engines have the same bore, stroke, and displacement as listed on the spec line, both tranny's gear ratios are listed on the spec line, and both rear ends were available in those years - yes.

In fact I was just about to pose two philisophical questions to Josh & Andy along those same lines:

1. What about different years of the same model (only one body type) on the same spec line, when certain options were only available on certain years? Are all years allowed to share the optional items? E.g. the '96-'02 Camaro in ITR, where the '96-'97 cars came with drum rear brakes (let's ignore for the sake of discussion that disc brakes were optional for those years), but the '98-'02 came with 4-wheel discs. Would the '96-'97 be allowed to update?

2. What about the case where there are different body styles that are not listed on the spec line - e.g. the ITA 240SX, which was available as a coupe or hatchback, but is only listed as "Nissan 240SX" on the spec line? Would those two body types be prohibited from sharing assemblies unique to one or the other?

[JoshS]

1. What about different years of the same model (only one body type) on the same spec line, when certain options were only available on certain years? Are all years allowed to share the optional items? E.g. the '96-'02 Camaro in ITR, where the '96-'97 cars came with drum rear brakes (let's ignore for the sake of discussion that disc brakes were optional for those years), but the '98-'02 came with 4-wheel discs. Would the '96-'97 be allowed to update?

Absolutely. This is the very point of update/backdate, to take the best from each model year of the same model.


2. What about the case where there are different body styles that are not listed on the spec line - e.g. the ITA 240SX, which was available as a coupe or hatchback, but is only listed as "Nissan 240SX" on the spec line? Would those two body types be prohibited from shared assemblies unique to one or the other?

Yup, that's the point of the restriction.

[quadzjr]

If it were me I would make a seperate spec line for each car. in the camaro example I would make the drum only version say 25-50lbs lighter than the disc version. That would make the current ITCS explode.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Earl, I agree with Josh on both counts.

[TomL]

At this point, I have to ask - why is the body type restriction included in the first place? What purpose (other than "that's what the rule says" :)) is supposed to be accomplished by NOT allowing UD/BD between body types? As in Quad's example, we allow you to swap engines, trans, rear axles, carbs to injection (or vice versa) between a '79 and a '93 Mustang basically without restriction. But if there is an item (say power steering) that came on a hatchback but not a notchback, the definition #2 makes putting PS in a notchback illegal. Again, what purpose does that serve? If a make/model/body type is on the same spec line, it sort of by definition "the same car". Why should we (in this example) get hung up on hatch vs. notch?

[Chip42]

the IT classifications, by process from what I understand (and also noting that there are a lot of non-processed cars around still) relies ONLY on factory HP plus expected gain with modifiers for FWD, REAR mid engined, etc... (see any's post below).

the mustang classification is a major anomaly, but does identify the oddness of the classification process.

I say classify anything that meets the requirements of 1) available for sale in the US, 2) manual trans, and 3) requested by a member, in any body or trim level of the subject make, model, and years that uses that motor and manual trans. just tell me clearly if I can use a GT grill on an LX-E sedan (stoopid), or manual steering on a EG civic DX coupe (real question), or disk brakes on the rear of a 3dr accord LXi (stretch), and please brake out the big changes like compression increases (miata does but not RX7), switches to EFI from carbs (mustang), etc... and lets start talking about removing the really dumb rules like keeping power steering (touring allows removing of pump, IMPROVED touring does not) as any argument to keep PS based on affect on published HP hold no water in the face of NEW spec lines with it as an option or only in certain body styles. it is the only engine-powered, unnecessary accessory not allowed to be removed (keep the rack, dump the pump).

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point is to not be able to create something 'better' than was available. Only to create the 'best of breed' and nothing more.

[Andy Bettencourt]

the IT classifications, by process from what I understand (and also noting that there are a lot of non-processed cars around still) relies ONLY on factory HP with modifiers for FWD, REAR mid engined, and strut adders of ±50lbs each.



Not true. Current ITAC can explain what the current Process is but the base number is the stock HP and that number is multiplied by an estimated % gain when prepped to the limit per IT allowances. The HP number that is 'put through' the Process is the estimated crank power number in IT prep.

Struts have no adders, double wishbones do.
FWD adders use a % that varies by class.
Excessive torque also has an adder.

Other stuff you missed I am sure.

[Chip42]

Not true.
fixed - but the point remains. stock, advertised HP is used as the BASE number. expected gains are sometimes bang on and others (toyota 4A-GE) way off. I screwed up adders, mea culpa. maybe if the ITAC were required to publish the current "process" and the CRB held to follow it, the confusion regarding the hocus pocus in adders and the expected gain (from what I have read: +30% in all cases -at least in ITB- due to DOHC 4 valves/cyl, please!) would be better understood.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Process is a tool used by the ITAC to get to a weight that is recommended to the CRB. They can set whatever weight they please.

[Chip42]

The Process...

massively off topic at this point. I apologize for my contribution to that.

should we or should we not allow for UD/BD of unique assemblies between body style of the same make / model / spec line?

if yes, why?

if no, why not? and how to approach the clarification, via a more specific statement of Specification, or by breaking down the spec lines?

[TomL]

Andy - I fail to see the distinction between the two. Once you allow updating/backdating, you are allowing stuff that wasn't available on your specific car. In erlich's example, 96-97 Camaros which never came with disc brakes are allowed to use discs from 98-02 (and Josh agrees). All years AND all make/model/body for a particular car are covered by a single spec line - what is the rationale for allowing swaps for essentially any year-to-year differences, (which can be considerable from a performance perspective) while differences between models or bodies, which are usually trivial, are verboten. In real terms, what would be lost by adopting definition #2?

I understand that there are reasons to limit what kind of updating you can do, such as not allowing mix-and-match pistons and heads in VWs, for example. But it seems that for that type of problem, the "complete assembly" language is an adequate fix. I don't see what problem that the body type restriction is meant to address.

[JoshS]

At this point, I have to ask - why is the body type restriction included in the first place? What purpose (other than "that's what the rule says" :)) is supposed to be accomplished by NOT allowing UD/BD between body types?

I am just speculating, but I suspect that the body type limitation is intended to prevent someone from putting together truly a frankenstein car. That is, a part on body style A that doesn't really mount properly to body style B (due to the mismatch in shape), but is enough of an advantage to want to do so.

For example, one of you yahoos would argue that since a 2-door Accord has rear glass and the 4-door has rear doors, and that someone doesn't want the added weight of those doors, they'd try to claim that they can replace their rear doors with the 2-door's rear glass due to the update/backdate allowance.

Update/backdate, by its name, is about DATES. It's not intended to let you put something together. The limitations about body style, make, model, and engine size basically limit the mixing & matching to things that differ by date but not much else.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy - I fail to see the distinction between the two. Once you allow updating/backdating, you are allowing stuff that wasn't available on your specific car.


It doesn't matter what my car WAS, it matters what I am presenting it to BE. And what is has to be is something that is on the spec line and not a cross section of parts that were never available between different makes, models or body types from the years on the spec line.

If the 'wagon' version came with a special front bumper cover that allowed for better cooling to a HD radiator, you could not put that onto the 'coupe' or 'sedan' version, even if it was on the same spec line. Like the rule or not, to me that concept is clear as written. Outdated? Needed? YMMV.

[TomL]

After further reflection, I think I figured out what the purpose of the make/model/body type language. The M/M/BT describes the car(s) that are covered by that spec. In most cases, the spec lists (along with the model years) a single make and model but no body type, which has to mean that all body types are included. In a few instances, there are multiple models on the same line (01-03 Protege ES/LX in ITA), while a few others have separate lines for nominally identical models because they have different engines/HP, etc. (CRX Si vs HF). Similarly, there are a few cars which do list one or more body styles. In some cases, (I think the ITR BMW 325 E46 coupe is one), there are other body styles which are not listed. (For others, (ITR BMW Z3 coupe and roadster, ITA Neon 2 and 4 door), the listing seems to cover all the available body styles, so I wonder why those specs don't, like most other listings, simply omit body type. Seems to serve no purpose.)

Remember, the language is UD/DB "is only permitted within cars of the same, model and body type .... as listed on a single IT spec line." I suspect the reason that this language was included was to keep someone from using parts not covered by the spec line listing, i.e., [model example] no Si parts on an HF and [body type example] no sedan parts (not listed) on a coupe (listed). And obviously, you can't use Honda parts on your Mazda [make example]. In other words, you can't use parts from a car that is not included on your spec line (which is defined by years, make, model and, in a few cases, body type). To me, this is the only good reason I can see to have the language at all, and it would still be consistent with definition #2.

[Greg Amy]

...I suspect that the body type limitation is intended to prevent someone from putting together truly a frankenstein car.
To an extent, you're correct.

The "body type" was an addition after the original rules were written; the original rule stated something like ud/bd allowed within same make/model/engine size car. However, I don't recall that station wagons were specifically excluded at that time, and it soon became apparent that manufacturers - especially 'Merican ones - equipped their wagons with heavier-duty equipment, including heavier-duty engines, intakes, suspensions, and brakes. Remember, "back then" wagons were really nothing more than light-duty pickup trucks underneath, not these fruity-car unibodies ;) ...so, it was some time later that the "body style" restriction was added.

Today, that is usually no longer the case. If you buy a Widget XR32 hatchback, it typically has the same equipment as the Widget XR32 "avant", and/or it has equipment differences that are irrelevant within the context of the IT regs. Ergo, within the context of this history, allowing (as an example) a Ford Escort hatchback to run the manual rack from the Ford Escort sedan, both of which are on the same IT spec line and certainly given both are specifically listed on that same line, is well within the original spirit of the rules. At that point it becomes the responsibility of the ITAC/CRB to determine significant differences in equipment due to body styles, should there be any, and place them on a separate line if necessary.

I can see both sides of the argument, now that we've attempted to deeply intorturate the words. I won't take a set on who may be correct, but it has always been my expectation/assumption that as long as the cars are on the same line, equipment can be freely switched. If this is not the case, I can easily think of several cars now that would be illegal (think of cars now that are running equipment combinations that the manufacturer never offered)...

Should this be taken up by the CRB, I predict they will freely allow equipment substitutions back and forth within the same spec line, and if necessary task the ITAC to determine which cars should be moved to a discrete spec line (the proper way to do it). - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can see both sides of the argument, now that we've attempted to deeply intorturate the words. I won't take a set on who may be correct, but it has always been my expectation/assumption that as long as the cars are on the same line, equipment can be freely switched. If this is not the case, I can easily think of several cars now that would be illegal (think of cars now that are running equipment combinations that the manufacturer never offered)...



Well, you can, except between body types. Assuming all cars on a spec line have the same sized engine, what generic example can you think of?

You can swap all kinds of parts and combinations as is, just not unique parts from different body styles. The rule allows us to mix and match assemblies from everything in the given year range on the spec line....except from different body styles.

[Greg Amy]

Actually, you got me there, Andy; I was thinking of cars with a combination of equipment that the manufacturer never supplied. I can't think of one right off-the-cuff where that's a result of an actual body type difference.

But think of it this way: if the intent of the rule is to block a Frankenstein, "vernacularly" defined as a combination of parts that the manufacturer never supplied thus potentially increasing performance over any version of the original IT-spec'd model, then the rule fails; we both know of current examples of that. Therefore, if we accept that Frankensteins are legal now as a result of parts being switched among the same body style, then we must accept similar Frankensteins for cars on the same line but with different body styles.

And, if the ITAC/CRB determines that the performance potential of the Widget XR32 hatchback is significantly different enough from the Widget XR32 Avant such that a Frankenstein can be built that dramatically increases in performance over either model, then those cars should be classified separately.

So, bottom line, Frankies exist now; are we going to acknowledge and embrace that reality, or are we going to reign it back in?

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, you got me there, Andy; I was thinking of cars with a combination of equipment that the manufacturer never supplied. I can't think of one right off-the-cuff where that's a result of an actual body type difference.

But think of it this way: if the intent of the rule is to block a Frankenstein, "vernacularly" defined as a combination of parts that the manufacturer never supplied thus potentially increasing performance over any version of the original IT-spec'd model, then the rule fails; we both know of current examples of that. Therefore, if we accept that Frankensteins are legal now as a result of parts being switched among the same body style, then we must accept similar Frankensteins for cars on the same line but with different body styles.

And, if the ITAC/CRB determines that the performance potential of the Widget XR32 hatchback is significantly different enough from the Widget XR32 Avant such that a Frankenstein can be built that dramatically increases in performance over either model, then those cars should be classified separately.

So, bottom line, Frankies exist now; are we going to acknowledge and embrace that reality, or are we going to reign it back in?

GA

Agreed. I think the real goal and definition of a Frankie is to block the creation of a combination that EXCEEDED the performance potential of the spec line. Like bigger brakes, or body parts, etc should that come up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But think of it this way: if the intent of the rule is to block a Frankenstein, "vernacularly" defined as a combination of parts that the manufacturer never supplied thus potentially increasing performance over any version of the original IT-spec'd model, then the rule fails; we both know of current examples of that.

Examples please... :) If I can't shoot them down, then the rule does fail us.

[Greg Amy]

Examples please... :) If I can't shoot them down, then the rule does fail us.
Don't know the details, but isn't there some odd combination of engines, intakes, and injection systems on the ITS RX-7 that Mazda never delivered? then, of course (sorry, can't resist) there's the ITA Miata with different engine outputs, all on the same line...these are simply examples, I don't want to start another Miata pissing match (AMPM)...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Don't know the details, but isn't there some odd combination of engines, intakes, and injection systems on the ITS RX-7 that Mazda never delivered? then, of course (sorry, can't resist) there's the ITA Miata with different engine outputs, all on the same line...these are simply examples, I don't want to start another Miata pissing match (AMPM)...

No issues!

1. There is no combination of engines, intakes, and injection systems on the ITS RX-7 that exceeds the engine, intake, and injection system on the 1989-1991 ITS RX-7. Yes, there are COMBINATIONS that never exisited (most common is the early harness and AFM with the later high compression rotors and intake). This is however legal under UD/BD and never exceeds the potential of the later harness, MAF rotors and intake.

2. The Miatas have the same potential output as well when you UD BD as has been discussed and proven.

I just don't think there are any examples in the ITCS. The rule is fine IMHO when you read the 'body type' for what it simply is, a restriction of UD/BDing unique stuff across body types on a given spec line.

[Greg Amy]

To these, as devil's advocates debate of the topic at hand (not AMPM)...

>>> ...Yes, there are COMBINATIONS that never exisited...

Ergo, since these cars have significant differences, we assume the ITAC/CRB has specifically recognized these differences and determined that a performance potential above-and beyond any one model is not possible, or if it is, to classify the cars with this Frankenstein performance potential in mind...

>>> ...The Miatas have the same potential output as well when you UD BD as has been discussed and proven.

...yet we use the lower hp rating of the two as a descriptor for the horsepower potential of the higher one. Again, we must rely on the ITAC/CRB to make that determination in advance as part of the active process.

So, what you are inferring is that the ITAC/CRB is taking the time to investigate all these Frankenstein possibilities in advance, not only on these two specific examples but on all other cars with odd potential combos as well (certainly not ignoring Frankenstein possibilities within the same body style). The implication of that is they have, are, or could also do the same investigations for odd combos of equipment on cars of different body styles.

Ergo, the logical conclusion is that the ITAC/CRB have already made these specific determinations in regard to varying body styles of cars on the same spec line, and have either relied on the "body style rule" to ensure no cross-pollination, or are, in effect, ignoring such cross-pollination as insignificant.

I offer this only rhetorically, but I suggest this kind of deep-down investigation has - and will not - occur except in rare cases (e.g., 1.8L Miata). So, let's either toss the body style rule and accept reality, or let's move different body styles of cars to discrete lines.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, what you are inferring is that the ITAC/CRB is taking the time to investigate all these Frankenstein possibilities in advance, not only on these two specific examples but on all other cars with odd potential combos as well (certainly not ignoring Frankenstein possibilities within the same body style). The implication of that is they have, are, or could also do the same investigations for odd combos of equipment on cars of different body styles.



Whenever cars are combined on a spec line, yes, those issues are considered.

They are NOT considered for cars of different body styles because those UD/BD's are specifically disallowed.

[Greg Amy]

Whenever cars are combined on a spec line, yes, those issues are considered.
No offense intended to anyone, but I would be shocked if a variation of the following line was ever uttered in an ITAC/CRB meeting over the last two decades:

"Well, that high-performance part was only available on the [wagon/sedan/hatchback], so we don't need to account for it affecting the car's performance."

GA

[Chip42]

while PS racks and brake specs on differing body styles is pretty strait forward. whatever the determination regarding the UD/BD and body styles is, the result can be implimented without to much difficulty from a rules writing standpoint.

what about subtle things like sunroofs?

A: cars from one specline. the 01-03 protege, ITA: ES and LX. brakes spec'ed are from the ES only and never came on the LX. beyond that, the only IT-relevant differences are sunroofs. could you take a no sunroof LX body and use the specline brakes from the ES, thereby creating a model that was never sold in the US - with larger brakes and no sunroof? alternatively, could you use a DX body with crank windows, as it is identical to an LX without power options?

B: assuming cars are from a different specline - such as what happened when the VIN rule was first removed - 96-00 Civic EX, ITA: the EX came with a sunroof standard. there are coupe bodies around that could be used as doners to replace a bent EX body or for whatever reason, the final car being 100% EX mechancially. thus, would a no sunroof EX be legal?

if A is permissable, why not B? granted, one is shuffling about of components on a specline, within a body style, to create a unique car which seems to be permissible within the intent. but the other is doing the same OFF of a spec line. the cars I used were selected because they have the same classification weight in the same class and have the same factory HP rating, are both FWD, 16v 4cyls, and of simillar vintage and equipment. The EX civic hapens to have a different motor from its lower trim stablemates, while mazda went with a one-motor model from 02-on, regardless of trim.

I doubt that the classification process took the sunroofs (or lack there of) into account, or that the performance difference is significant between the 2 roofs (granted there is a CG change, but is it enough to be noticeable at all?). in both cases, the resultant car would be one that was never sold in the US but that meets the mechancial limitations of the specline. it seems more like the presence of the thing was artificially cought up in the engine classification than intentionally sequestered onto a specline.

I am more curious as to WHY the answer is what it is or why you think so. I find this situation facinating.

[quadzjr]

I am still at a loss about my mustang issue. so you are allowed to take anything off these two cars and UP/BD between them, thus creating a hybrid that never existed in real life? Yes the motors had the same displacement (but they had different heads, cams, intakes, pistons). I believe they also changed the steering geometry to fix the ackerman issues. They also as well as tranmssions, and rear differentials.

both have the same body style "notch backs"

http://mustangview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/1979FordMustang-c.jpg
http://px6.streetfire.net/0001/01/63/1411036_600.jpg
disreguard the 5.0 badge.. this is an lx with the 5.0 swap, but you get the idea.

so you are allowed to swap over entire asseblies from one to the other (engine, tranny, etc..) with no consequence?

[Andy Bettencourt]

No offense intended to anyone, but I would be shocked if a variation of the following line was ever uttered in an ITAC/CRB meeting over the last two decades:

"Well, that high-performance part was only available on the [wagon/sedan/hatchback], so we don't need to account for it affecting the car's performance."

GA

While I can understand your comment, you have to take into account a few things. First off, any combination of spec lines done by the ITAC in the last 5-7 years has been VERY minimal. When it happens, the 'best of breed' is most ceratinly considered and classed as such. Second, since it's illegal to UD/BD between body styles, those iterations are moot so discussion is limited.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am still at a loss about my mustang issue. so you are allowed to take anything off these two cars and UP/BD between them, thus creating a hybrid that never existed in real life? Yes the motors had the same displacement (but they had different heads, cams, intakes, pistons). I believe they also changed the steering geometry to fix the ackerman issues. They also as well as tranmssions, and rear differentials.

both have the same body style "notch backs"

http://mustangview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/1979FordMustang-c.jpg
http://px6.streetfire.net/0001/01/63/1411036_600.jpg
disreguard the 5.0 badge.. this is an lx with the 5.0 swap, but you get the idea.

so you are allowed to swap over entire asseblies from one to the other (engine, tranny, etc..) with no consequence?

On a car with different heads, cams and pistons, one would logically assume that if they are on the same spec line (ala the 2nd gen RX-7), the weight would be set for the version with the highest potential.

In the RX-7 example, the 86-88 cars came with a 146hp 13B. Since the 89-91 cars are on the smae spec line, you can UD to that powerplant. The spec weight is based on the 160hp motor and it's potential.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, isn't Greg right about the RX7 though? Don't most use the early intake coupled with the later FI system (or vice versa)? Meaning a car that never existed is created?

I'm fine with that, but fail to see why a a body style distinction should trump (what I view as) the overarching rule that if they are on the same spec line, you can update/backdate.

[quadzjr]

On a car with different heads, cams and pistons, one would logically assume that if they are on the same spec line (ala the 2nd gen RX-7), the weight would be set for the version with the highest potential.

In the RX-7 example, the 86-88 cars came with a 146hp 13B. Since the 89-91 cars are on the smae spec line, you can UD to that powerplant. The spec weight is based on the 160hp motor and it's potential.

That kinda makes sense. as you are making turning an 86-88 into a 89-91 car with the UD. However as Jeff pointed out wouldn't running an early intake on a later motor in either configuation be illegal?

In following wiht the RX7 model I am fine with changing the 86-88 model into an 89-91 model. What I don't see as legal is the mustang example. Meaning running a late model engien with an early model carbed intake, with a late model 5 speed, and an early model differential, in a late model chassis. The result is a car that never existed in any year from production.

If I could figure out legaly how to make this car turn and brake you could really take advantage of this rulling. In talking with Ron, I know they have spend hours and hours of R&D to make there mustang work. It does very well on tracks in the area.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No it wouldn't. It's the very definition of UD/BD. Teh guys with early cars have updated to the later engine (intake manifold and high compression pistons while reatining the AFM, ECU and harness because that stuff is a nightmare to convert unless you are doing a ground up. And read the rule carefully, what you can't create is a 'model' or 'type' of car that never existed. You can ceratinly interchange assemblies within the spec line.

The body rules trumps it because it clearly says it trumps it. It's about equipment that was never available on THAT BODY TYPE....don;t make it more difficult than it is.

If a station wagon had a tail wing like some new minivans and hatches, do you think you can take that unit and place it onto a coupe or sedan at the trailing edge of the roofline? No. You can UD/BD components and assemblies amounst cars of the same body type.

[quadzjr]

I follow you now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I follow you now.

And in making an effort to follow you, maybe there are way too many years and iterations of that Stang on the spec line...but if you can get one to stop and handle, head out to ITR in a V8!!!

[quadzjr]

And in making an effort to follow you, maybe there are way too many years and iterations of that Stang on the spec line...but if you can get one to stop and handle, head out to ITR in a V8!!!

Maybe later, worked alot with them in the Drag racing days (where stoping and handling order of importance were probably between what air pressure to run and what lugnuts we used haha.)

till then I am still kicking the Dead horse with the MR2s. Still working on my next plan of action with it.

[Chip42]

No it wouldn't. It's the very definition of UD/BD...
I've often wondered what defines an "assembly" in this instance? long block, short block, rotating assembly, pistons? transmission, or gear stack, or a single gear pair? Entire intake manifold from the TB to the head interface, or just a Throttle body? is it a question of what the smallest subassembly a dealer will sell you, making it manufacturer or model specific, or are there some general guidlines?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Guideline on page 355 of the GCR.

[Chip42]

wow that was a rookie miss. thanks.

following the RX7 train of thought, I could legally build and run an ITA Civic del sol Si with a 96 intake (D16Y8) on a 95 long block and trans (D16Z6)? that's honda challenge stuff right there. No wonder the car is 25lbs heavy compared to the Civic models that use these 2 motors - the frankenbeast is already expected and accounted for.