PDA

View Full Version : STx Notes, December Fastrack



Greg Amy
11-23-2010, 02:04 PM
Some December Fastrack notes.

- STO/U re-write as published in August Fastrack approved.
- STL approved as a Regional class
- Integra Type R and Honda S2000 excluded in their entirety (including chassis) for STL, including the chassis
- 1985+ IT cars eligible for STU
- SMs legal for STL

Note that they published a complete Super Touring ruleset re-write without the strike through; makes it easier to read.

benspeed
11-23-2010, 04:56 PM
Luv the legal disclaimer :-)

STU - question...

Is it me or does that M3 seem to get nice dispensation? My 968 is again weighted down like a tank at 3,300. With a 3.0 L 4 banger I'm heavier than the BMW M3 3.2L 6 banger at 3,200.

I think STU will be the same as ITR - nearly all BMWs.

Greg Amy
11-23-2010, 05:16 PM
Is it me or does that M3 seem to get nice dispensation?

On edit: DISREGARD! I see what you mean; you're referring to the "H" tables/allowances. I have no background on that. - GA

I can offer you this on a personal perspective, Ben: both cars start with 240 stock ponies, but the 968 has room to grow on compression, since it's 8.3 stock and you can go to 12:1. The M3 starts with 10.8 and can only go to 11.3. How are the cams between the cars? You can go up to .5 lift; that's the stock cam on the E36 M3...?

benspeed
11-23-2010, 05:36 PM
Thanks for the perspective, Greg. I wonder if running in ITR trim at 245 pounds lighter is a better way to roll. Heck, sure is cheaper than doing a full on motor. I was quoted a full race motor making 300hp at the crank for $18,000. Lotta dough to run heavy and maybe not be that much faster than I am in ITR trim.

The smart money is to buy an M3 that's already setup for WC methinks. But for now I'll just run ITR trim and have fun - and put that $18,000 into a tire budget :-)

Greg Amy
11-23-2010, 05:41 PM
I wonder if running in ITR trim at 245 pounds lighter is a better way to roll.
I think it's a clever tactic to take...what will result in the better ponies/weight ratio? As you pointed out it's certainly the CHEAPER tactic to take, and you're still legal for ITR... - GA

Z3_GoCar
11-23-2010, 11:34 PM
On edit: DISREGARD! I see what you mean; you're referring to the "H" tables/allowances. I have no background on that. - GA

I can offer you this on a personal perspective, Ben: both cars start with 240 stock ponies, but the 968 has room to grow on compression, since it's 8.3 stock and you can go to 12:1. The M3 starts with 10.8 and can only go to 11.3. How are the cams between the cars? You can go up to .5 lift; that's the stock cam on the E36 M3...?

It also has the same throttle body, intake manifold (which can't be port matched), and head as my motor, but the cams are a little hotter.

As for staying at IT weight, you have to realize that you're giving up a real aero advantage, and if you have issues with soft oe motor mounts like I have. Then there's the advantage of running an aluminum flywheel, both cost wise at 2/3's the cost of an oe flywheel that can't be surfaced as well as the acceleration.

Chip42
11-24-2010, 10:01 AM
tGA or others

1 - can you explain the reaosning for the chart in STU including cars such as the Audi A4, Mini Cooper S, etc... that are listed with no notes and weight per the chart? wouldn't it have been easier to leave them to the main rules as they appear to me at least to be legal basd on 9.1.4.2 in general.

2 - what does the chart mean in terms of motor swaps from those cars - particularly the group mentioned above where they appear fully legal as doner engines to a swap per the ST category rules, or those such as the 2AZ-FE + TRD supercharger from the Scion Tc which could be directly ported to a coroola / matrix / camry or easily enough to many other toyotas. how is the weight of a chart-car based swap worked out, or is it not allowed?

Greg Amy
11-24-2010, 10:30 AM
...can you explain the reaosning for the chart in STU including cars such as the Audi A4, Mini Cooper S, etc... that are listed with no notes and weight per the chart? wouldn't it have been easier to leave them to the main rules as they appear to me at least to be legal basd on 9.1.4.2 in general.
I cannot; the chart was as much a surprise to me as to you (I don't recall seeing that published anywhere prior to this month's Fastrack.)*

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you**. Each of those cars that have engine displacements of less than 3001cc are already legal and allowed to the rules per the weighting chart, and unless they have some allowance/deviation from the standard STU rules (see 3.2L M3) there is zero reason that they should be in that chart.


what does the chart mean in terms of motor swaps from those cars... how is the weight of a chart-car based swap worked out, or is it not allowed?I don't know. However, since the engine/chassis combo is specifically allowed in the class with that weight, and since the class structure is all around weight based on the installed engine, then I think** it makes perfect and common sense that any engine specifically allowed in the class (e.g., E36 M3's 3.2L) at a specified weight (e.g., 3200 pounds) is perfectly legal to be installed in any other chassis from that manufacturer (e.g., Z3 or E30) and run in STU at the chart-specified weight (e.g., 3200#). It's the same logic that follows the discrete disallowance of specific cars and engine in STL.

I do think it's going to be fun when someone figures out how to put that Ford 4.0L SOHC V6 mated to a Tremec into an IRS-equipped Mustang Cobra chassis...

Was this the intent of this rule? Can't say. But this kinda thinking is what happens when you start messing around with a basic rules structure and making individual allowances, without possibly being able to know all the answers (see Greg's Tip #1 from "How to Write a Rule (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779)").

GA

* As of this date, I am new to the committee; I have not had any significant interaction with members except on individual basis as an interested competitor.

** Please read my sig line. Now read it again. One more time if you're still not clear.

Z3_GoCar
11-24-2010, 11:01 AM
tGA or others

1 - can you explain the reaosning for the chart in STU including cars such as the Audi A4, Mini Cooper S, etc... that are listed with no notes and weight per the chart? wouldn't it have been easier to leave them to the main rules as they appear to me at least to be legal basd on 9.1.4.2 in general.

2 - what does the chart mean in terms of motor swaps from those cars - particularly the group mentioned above where they appear fully legal as doner engines to a swap per the ST category rules, or those such as the 2AZ-FE + TRD supercharger from the Scion Tc which could be directly ported to a coroola / matrix / camry or easily enough to many other toyotas. how is the weight of a chart-car based swap worked out, or is it not allowed?

I'd assume it has to do with forced induction: The A4 uses the 1.8 turbo and the MC-S has a belt driven supercharger. I'm suprised that they don't specify a minimum belt pulley size for the MC-S, as the smaller pulley is an option you get with the John Cooper Special dealer installed package.

benspeed
11-24-2010, 12:03 PM
For fun I'm going to ask that the Boxster S is classed in STU :-) Sent a note in yesterday to have the 97-99 Boxster moved to ITS.

Z3_GoCar
11-24-2010, 03:57 PM
I don't know. However, since the engine/chassis combo is specifically allowed in the class with that weight, and since the class structure is all around weight based on the installed engine, then I think** it makes perfect and common sense that any engine specifically allowed in the class (e.g., E36 M3's 3.2L) at a specified weight (e.g., 3200 pounds) is perfectly legal to be installed in any other chassis from that manufacturer (e.g., Z3 or E30) and run in STU at the chart-specified weight (e.g., 3200#). It's the same logic that follows the discrete disallowance of specific cars and engine in STL....

GA

* As of this date, I am new to the committee; I have not had any significant interaction with members except on individual basis as an interested competitor.

** Please read my sig line. Now read it again. One more time if you're still not clear.

While it might be interesting to make a Z3M from my chassis, the better option would be to use the older M-50 2.5 liter, which also shares the same head casting but has a manifold that is both port matched from the factory as well as bigger runners and plenum. I'd get to stay at my same weight of 2750lbs too.

red986s
11-28-2010, 10:47 AM
For fun I'm going to ask that the Boxster S is classed in STU :-) Sent a note in yesterday to have the 97-99 Boxster moved to ITS.

Now if you could make that happen, I'd be a happy guy!!! I've got a 2000 S collecting dust in my garage.

EDIT: But I suspect the Boxster S would get the same "flogging" that the S2000 gets rule-wise.

Chip42
11-29-2010, 11:48 AM
I can see excluding the lotus Elise chassis but to do the same to the 'teg R and the S2000, or their motors, makes no sense to me. if they are willing to allow >3.0L motors or other non-standard allowances at alternate weights (even if only in the originally equipped delivered vehicles and not swaps, which is not clear), why not do the same for these cars in STL?

the Boxter S might fit into STU, I don't know. but consistancy is needed in the application of the admittedly very new rules. and they need to stop changing them so damned often to let a class develop.

red986s
11-29-2010, 03:05 PM
I can see excluding the lotus Elise chassis but to do the same to the 'teg R and the S2000, or their motors, makes no sense to me.

I imagine they would both dominate the class.


The Boxter S might fit into STU, I don't know.

At stock 250HP yes they would fit but with a 3.2L flat six it doesn't. I'm affraid the "S" is a misfit in SCCA and regulated to T2 for now. Sucks!

Chip42
11-29-2010, 03:27 PM
if they are willing to allow a 3.8 and 4.0L V6 mustang with 0.040 over and +0.5CR with stock cams, they should be willing to allow the Boxter S with simillar restrictions and an appropriat specified weight under 9.1.4.2.H

they could do likewise in STL by making an alternate minimum weight for the S2000 and ITR. a miata chassis pretty simillar to an S2000 and less tricky (their are complaints from some about the S2000 rear suspension geometry) and there are very good motors available to go into it (i.e. MZR 2.0L with allowed mods).

either way, they need to add language to clarify if the vehicles listed in 9.1.4.1/2.H are eligible for engine swaps FROM that list and the mechanism for assigning weight to such vehicles.

suki101
11-29-2010, 06:11 PM
Quick question about STL; does the same age rule apply? Only cars 1985+ can compete? I might not be interpreting the rules correctly so I need some clarification. Thanks. :eclipsee_steering:

Greg Amy
11-29-2010, 06:23 PM
...does the same age rule apply? Only cars 1985+ can compete?
Correct.

A.J
01-01-2011, 10:49 AM
The smart money is to buy an M3 that's already setup for WC methinks. got me thinking, take my x wc car put in a stock s54 motor (3.2) with bolt-ons (makes 350-360whp,on pump gas, 8500+ rpm) add some weight, if that's not enough i can port the head, bump comp, n add cams, lol, should b interesting, does the update/backdate rules allow me to do that

Z3_GoCar
01-01-2011, 12:45 PM
got me thinking, take my x wc car put in a stock s54 motor (3.2) with bolt-ons (makes 350-360whp,on pump gas, 8500+ rpm) add some weight, if that's not enough i can port the head, bump comp, n add cams, lol, should b interesting, does the update/backdate rules allow me to do that

That motor's clearly in STO. So unless you want to race with Vette's and Vipers, I'd stick with the S-52 that was classed.

Greg Amy
01-01-2011, 01:06 PM
That motor's clearly in STO. So unless you want to race with Vette's and Vipers, I'd stick with the S-52 that was classed.
Very good point!

AJ, keep in mind this is an engine-centric class; this means that your car's classification depends on what engine you want to install. So if you want to install an engine that's in an STO-classified car, your car moves to STO.

GA

A.J
01-01-2011, 02:54 PM
Just throwing something out there, I read u can run stu at 3200lbs with a 3.2, did they say it as to b a s52(3.2), or a s54(3.2), 3.2 is 3.2 lol

Greg Amy
01-01-2011, 03:35 PM
Just throwing something out there, I read u can run stu at 3200lbs with a 3.2, did they say it as to b a s52(3.2), or a s54(3.2), 3.2 is 3.2 lol
No, x42 dash 3.5 slash 48, stroke 15 raised to the 32nd power, I believe...

:happy204:

I have no idea what you're talking about, AJ ;). You need to read the rules since you're responsible for making the car legal. But, the 95-99 E36 BMW M3 engine is allowed in STU at 3200 pounds, but is only allowed .040" overbore, 1/2 pt compression increase, and has to use stock camshaft lift. Read the December Fastrack for the latest iteration of the rules...

GA

A.J
01-01-2011, 05:41 PM
No, x42 dash 3.5 slash 48, stroke 15 raised to the 32nd power, I believe...

:happy204:

I have no idea what you're talking about, AJ ;). You need to read the rules since you're responsible for making the car legal. But, the 95-99 E36 BMW M3 engine is allowed in STU at 3200 pounds, but is only allowed .040" overbore, 1/2 pt compression increase, and has to use stock camshaft lift. Read the December Fastrack for the latest iteration of the rules...

GAtook your advice n read the rules, u r correct, but what i don't understand is if i choose to run 2001 330 (3.0) e46 bmw i have to weight 3300lb, but i can also run a 99m3 (3.2) at 3200lb, with the mods allowed n what can b done to the 3.2 motor, it's gonna b interesting to balance all these cars

Greg Amy
01-01-2011, 05:47 PM
...it's gonna b interesting to balance all these cars
Yer tellin' me, bro..."interesting" is a nice choice of words...

benspeed
01-02-2011, 11:24 AM
The tough pill for the M3 motor is it must have stock cam lift. I thought that sorta porked the x WC cars that this class was made for, no?

Greg Amy
01-02-2011, 11:31 AM
The tough pill for the M3 motor is it must have stock cam lift. I thought that sorta porked the x WC cars that this class was made for, no?
It's > 3.0L. If we're gonna make it a free-for-all for any cars over 3L, might as well run them all into one class and call it, I dunno, "STO"?

There's gotta be a line somewhere. We're already tickling with that line now... If we continue to approve cars >3L into STU, then they're gonna have build restrictions along with that approval. Can't have it both ways.

GA

benspeed
01-02-2011, 06:01 PM
Trust me! I'm not complaining! Suddenly I just got a lot more competitive in STU.

A.J
01-02-2011, 07:18 PM
The tough pill for the M3 motor is it must have stock cam lift. I thought that sorta porked the x WC cars that this class was made for, no?it's gonna b hard to beat a well built 3.2 s52 motor,the rules say u can go .5 lift, .40 over bore, most full race cams, vac (.407 lift, 286/272 duration , evosport, sunbelt, r more duration cams,there r stock 3.2 out there with evosport cams making 280+ whp, with a good usuable torque band, so if i was to max the rules out, more lift cam, .40 over, deep pocket piston for the higher lift cam, porting to what's allowed, according to the rules i can run bigger cams than i'm currently running, for reference, a nasa gts3 bmw with a s52 with cams, weighting around 3100lb turns 2:09's at the glen, they have more aero stuff, knowing what i know i do believe the stu limit should b set at 3.0, the limit for the wc touring cars were 2.5 n 2.8 if i remember correctly

Greg Amy
01-02-2011, 07:36 PM
it's gonna b hard to beat a well built 3.2 s52 motor,the rules say u can go .5 lift, .40 over bore...
Read Da RuleZ, bro! If you enter the 95-99 M3 ("S52") engine in STU, you have to run stock lift camshafts, which on a quickie Google search reveals they're 10.2mm (.4015") lift stock...and you can't go to 12:1 compression, only 1/2 pt over stock, or 11:1.

Seriously, take some time to read the rules. You don't want to go into an event with an illegal car, as we're going to be watching these cars very carefully...

GA

A.J
01-02-2011, 08:22 PM
Read Da RuleZ, bro!

You don't want to go into an event with an illegal car, as we're going to be watching these cars very carefully...

GAi'll b watching too, no more stu for me, i know phil n fred won't like that, but i think they r on the fence too, i'll b running with the guys that do the space program

A.J
01-02-2011, 09:15 PM
On edit: DISREGARDbackground on that. - GA

I can offer you this on a personal perspective, Ben: both cars start with 240 stock ponies, but the 968 has room to grow on compression, since it's 8.3 stock and you can go to 12:1. The M3 starts with 10.8 and can only go to 11.3. How are the cams between the cars? You can go up to .5 lift; that's the stock cam on the E36 M3...?
those damm rules,i gotta read them u r right again,i need to stop reading quotes (that's where i got that .5 lift from) the stock cam is .401 n a commonly used race cam has a lift of .407 a diff of .006, after wear n tear n measuring error, talking about cutting it close

Z3_GoCar
01-02-2011, 09:16 PM
Read Da RuleZ, bro! If you enter the 95-99 M3 ("S52") engine in STU, you have to run stock lift camshafts, which on a quickie Google search reveals they're 10.2mm (.4015") lift stock...and you can't go to 12:1 compression, only 1/2 pt over stock, or 11:1.

Seriously, take some time to read the rules. You don't want to go into an event with an illegal car, as we're going to be watching these cars very carefully...

GA

If you read the section on the M42 sport cams you'll see that they claim two different lift spec's 10.35mm for the intake and 9.7mm for the exhaust:

http://www.metricmechanic.com/pdfs/metric-mechanic-m42-and-m44-engine-booklet.pdf


In the past, most manufacturers ran the same cam on the intake and exhaust side. But, when the ‘95 M3 came out, BMW chose to run their intake cam with more duration and lift than the exhaust cam. They used an intake cam with 256 duration and 10.35mm lift (same as the Shrick) but it also had 25 of VANOS added to the intake cam. And they
used milder a 235 exhaust cam with 9.7mm lift along with VANOS to increase the low and
midrange torque of the engine.

It's also still anchored with it's oe manifold and throttle body.

As for the space program guys, the continuing resolution only funded them at last years level. It'll be a rough few years for them, with the gridlock that's going to happen in the Congress.

Greg Amy
01-02-2011, 09:23 PM
If you read the section on the M42 sport cams you'll see that they claim two different lift spec's 10.37mm for the intake and 9.7mm for the exhaust...
I'll defer the facts to you BimmerHeads. I'm only pointing out that the 3.2L approved engine has build limitations that 3L-and-under engines don't.

Personal opinion: I'm not pleased that the 3L "line in the sand" has been breached in STU; let's not go overboard and rub sand in the face here by missing these prescribed limitations... - GA

Z3_GoCar
01-02-2011, 09:27 PM
I'll defer the facts to you BimmerHeads. I'm only pointing out that the 3.2L approved engine has build limitations that 3L-and-under engines don't.

Personal opinion: I'm not pleased that the 3L "line in the sand" has been breached in STU; let's not go overboard and rub sand in the face here by missing these prescribed limitations... - GA

I'm just pointing out that the limit's are lower than some may think. Someone may also think that the 10.35mm lift also applied to the exhaust cam, which it doesn't. Just remember that the line wasn't originally crossed by a Bimmer, but rather by the Nissan VQ.

Knestis
01-02-2011, 09:33 PM
If one can swap engines and gearboxes between Acuri and Hondae, can the same be done with VWs and Audis?

And if I'm reading the STL gearbox rules correctly, any gear set of gear ratios can be installed in the 'box, and under the "Retrofitting OEM complete gear sets" allowance, one could mix and match from stock parts to get whatever 1st to 5th ratios one wanted...?

K

Greg Amy
01-02-2011, 10:09 PM
Just remember that the line wasn't originally crossed by a Bimmer, but rather by the Nissan VQ.
James, forgive me if it was inferred differently, but in my mind this is not a "BMW Thing" in any manner. And I do sincerely defer the facts to you that know.

Given it may come up as a question in the future, BMW drivers would be well-advised to investigate, ensure everyone involved knows those correct numbers, and ensures their vehicles meet those specs, whatever they are.

GA

Greg Amy
01-02-2011, 10:11 PM
If one can swap engines and gearboxes between Acuri and Hondae, can the same be done with VWs and Audis?
Yes, IMO. Audi is a family member of VWoA, as is Porsche, Bentley, and whom else...?


...one could mix and match from stock parts to get whatever 1st to 5th ratios one wanted...?
Yup. Or 6th, even...

GA, curious as to what The Prof has going through his head....

Knestis
01-02-2011, 10:30 PM
Playing with a solution to my SuperRally/hillclimb/rallycross/tarmac/ice interests again...

Pablo got so good at enduros, he's become obsolete for other fun stuff and I'm looking for options.

K

Z3_GoCar
01-02-2011, 10:32 PM
Yes, IMO. Audi is a family member of VWoA, as is Porsche, Bentley, and whom else...?


Yup. Or 6th, even...

GA, curious as to what The Prof has going through his head....

Does VW/Audi/Porsche manufacture their own gearboxes, or do they purchase them from other sources, aka Getrag/ZF? If the boxes are manufactured by Getrag/ZF are any gear sets allowed from any Getrag/ZF box?

Knestis
01-02-2011, 11:12 PM
So far as I know, VWAG builds their own but gearboxes that bolt up to the Golf, Jetta, et al. have been around for so long, and in so many cars, there are all kinds of ratios available.

K

Greg Amy
01-02-2011, 11:23 PM
If the boxes are manufactured by Getrag/ZF are any gear sets allowed from any Getrag/ZF box?
Philosophically, from your perspective the 'boxes would need to have been installed in a family car to be able to be swapped. Technically, since gear ratios are free, Prof is thinking about what gear that have been made would actually physically fit in the 'box he already has... - GA

Chip42
01-03-2011, 02:59 PM
STO/U boxes are free, up to 6 ratios. I see no requirement in the rule s(dec fastrack) that the box be OEM. sequentials (A'La XTRAC) have a weight penalty.

STL boxes can be in-brand swaps "in their entirety" and/or "retrofitting OEM complete gear sets"

so it depends on which ST you want to play in. any ratios in U, like the prof is looking at, any VW/Audi trans or gearstack in L, so long as the ratio set is as delivered in some car from the family in the USA.

tGA - would chevrolet/pontiac/etc... be in the same family as toyota as toyota has built so many GM cars (FWD nova, GEO/Chevy prism, Vibe) or just those cars count as toyota? could I run a 3.0L toyota V6 in a vibe? Or maybe a honda 3.0L V6 like that used in a saturn vue in a cobalt or Astra? Taking it further - could I run a honda 4cyl in a toyota as they both make motors for GM thus are "all GM"???

generally speaking, I wouldn't say that honda or toyota = GM, but The automotive world is incestuous...

Greg Amy
01-03-2011, 03:15 PM
...would chevrolet/pontiac/etc... be in the same family as toyota as toyota has built so many GM cars (FWD nova, GEO/Chevy prism, Vibe) or just those cars count as toyota?
IMO, I'd say "go with the badge" that was on the car. If the transaxle was ever installed in Pontiac, it's free game for any GM product. But if the transaxle was only installed in the Toyota version of the same car, I'd suggest it's not legal for a GM car... - GA

Knestis
01-03-2011, 05:16 PM
STO/U boxes are free, up to 6 ratios. I see no requirement in the rule s(dec fastrack) that the box be OEM. sequentials (A'La XTRAC) have a weight penalty.

STL boxes can be in-brand swaps "in their entirety" and/or "retrofitting OEM complete gear sets"

so it depends on which ST you want to play in. any ratios in U, like the prof is looking at, any VW/Audi trans or gearstack in L, so long as the ratio set is as delivered in some car from the family in the USA. ...

Now I'm questioning what I thought I just learned.

In STL, does the entire "gear set" - so ALL OF THE GEARS, 1st-5th - have to be "retrofitted" in their entirety, or can EACH "gear PAIR" be retrofitted (potentially from different sources) to end up with optimized spacing 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5...?

Put differently, do I have to point at a chart of all of the gears in their original location and say, "We used these five"...? That as opposed to, 1st came from the stock '92 Golf GL, 2nd from a '97 Golf III, 3rd and 4th from a MkII Jetta diesel, and 5th from an '84 GTI...

Again - I'm looking at STL.

K

Greg Amy
01-03-2011, 06:02 PM
Again - I'm looking at STL.
STL rule states:

"Either the OEM transmission or an alternate transmission must be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same manufacturer as the vehicle (e.g., an Acura transmission may be installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in their entirety. Retrofitting OEM complete gear sets in an alternate transmission case is permitted."

STU rule states:

"Transmission and ratios are free. Forward gears are limited to 6 speeds."

On edit: BTW, that's something I missed, too; I was expecting you could mix-n-match gears. Honestly, I'd prefer you be allowed to...

Chip42
01-03-2011, 06:34 PM
IMO, I'd say "go with the badge" that was on the car. If the transaxle was ever installed in Pontiac, it's free game for any GM product. But if the transaxle was only installed in the Toyota version of the same car, I'd suggest it's not legal for a GM car... - GA

where's the line, though? GM and ford gobbled up everyone at one point. does isuzu count as GM (absolutely SHOULD for the past 10 years or so at least but what about their older cars)? SAAB? is volvo ford, still? mazda? Jaguar?? MB and chrystler have split, but could I take a 98 AMG motor and put it into my dodge challenger? there's bloodlines that run deeper than might be obvious on the surface.

I can accept that a "customer car" such as a GEO would be a GM for purposes of sourcing motors, and that such sourcing would be limited to that "brand". but what about the other direction - sourcing parts from a customer model (say the Geo prism) for use in a car of the original manufacturer (in this example, toyota)?? the "best" USDM toyota 4AGE was in a geo prism GSi. by the "intent" I feel this should be 100% legal, no questions asked, for a toyota car (corolla, MR2, whatever) as it's a TOYOTA motor, and an evolutionary version of one sold AS a toyota in the US previously.

Honda/acura, VW/audi, pontiac/chevy, etc... are really obvious "sister" companies. some of the others not so much - even mazda/ford/volvo/jag/etc.. which have a lot of overlap (same engines and/or chassis in many cases) I think would be a stretch to call "sister" marques but could very well be identical cars under the sheetmetal (Jag S/Lincoln LS/Tbird or Mazda3-Volvo30/40/50)

I'm basically only asking in order to get ahead of the problems that WILL eventually arise from different readings by racers/officials/competitors

Chip42
01-03-2011, 06:37 PM
STL rule states:
On edit: BTW, that's something I missed, too; I was expecting you could mix-n-match gears. Honestly, I'd prefer you be allowed to...
one of the many reasons STL makes no sense as written. good IDEA, needs garlic.

Greg Amy
01-03-2011, 06:49 PM
where's the line, though?
As you're implying, it's rather large, wide, and very gray. I don't think there's a hard, fast answer for you. But I would suggest that if someone were to try something non-obvious (e.g., putting a Pontiac G8 engine into a Toyota Yaris) that they'd at least try to pass that through SCCA Technical first...but in the end, it's the protest/appeal process that they'd have to overcome.

As far as I'm personally concerned, I think the intent of the ST rules are intended such that doing something like that is OK, but that's not an official position by any means... - GA

benspeed
01-04-2011, 04:43 PM
Greg - that disclaimer is getting some heavy duty work :-)

You're doing a nice job of pointing the compass through the fog, bro.