PDA

View Full Version : Should NON-US motors be allowed in ST?



Chip42
02-08-2011, 03:54 PM
Well, what do you think? if you have a strong position one way or another, I'd like to know. and I bet others, up to and including the PTB, would as well.

Knestis
02-08-2011, 05:52 PM
Yes. The big first assumptions of the class - as I understand them - would be in no way compromised by this approach.

K

ON EDIT - My answer might be different for STU vs STL.

Andy Bettencourt
02-08-2011, 05:57 PM
I said no. What problem is this 'solution' fixing? I am not sure any. Are you opening up a market of engines that will equalize the power/cc issue?

Is it neccessary? What beneifts does it provide? Does it have the same effect for all manufacturers or just the ones 'you' (the collective you) like?

For a rule change like this, I like to hear WHY, instead of WHY NOT. (Looking at this from an STL point of view)

JohnW
02-08-2011, 07:50 PM
For a rule change like this, I like to hear WHY

First, I'm not an expert. And second, I'm only concerned with Hondas. Plus, I'm certainly biased a little. :)

That said.

Why not?

The K20a and K20a2 are almost identical. Most of the parts can be mixed and matched. Same with much of the B series stuff. One could build a JDM spec K20a engine using a K20a2 US block and few (if any) would know any better...

That's what I'd do...

Policing would be a B-itch.

Matt93SE
02-08-2011, 10:24 PM
I bet if I stuck an SR20DE in my 240SX, I could go all season locally without anybody even batting an eye. Why? Cause it says Nissan on the valve cover and it bolts in stock. (The car came with this engine in every other country it was sold.) I can provide a bazillion pictures of this engine in this chassis, including a service manual in Engrish with drawings of this engine in the chassis and everything.

The guys in tech can't possibly know every car and every US engine that's on the market, so it's nearly impossible to police this kind of stuff.

I haven't been asked to lift my hood by anyone since I got my logbook for the car back in May. Of course I've only run regionals so far, but it's not like I'm an also-ran. I've finished in the top 5 overall and won STU in all but one race to date, as well as set track record at MSR-Houston.
Nonetheless, I could have been running a freakin Chevy V8 in the car all season and nobody would know..

But am I for non-US engines? HELL YES. Nissan's engine options under 3L are crapola for the US. everything is a long-stroke truck engine, or an ancient iron block designed in the 60s. for a supposedly modern class and philosophy, Nissan is stuck with engines from the stone ages.

Do I realize it would open up the class to all kinds of other uber-engines? You betcha. Bring 'em on.

Let's go back to the rules when they were originally made for the class: (This is STU-specific..)

Normally aspirated:
Under 3.0L displacement
12.0:1 max compression
0.6" max valve lift
6 spd max transmission.
weight = 1.1lb / cc displacement
Go.

Turbo?
stock turbo for the engine it came on. no conversions.
pick a tranny, 6 spds max.
weight is based on inlet restrictor size placed in turbo.
Go.

For whatever engine you have, you must a factory service manual in English in your possession.

Very simple to police. All of the components are easy to measure and/or verify with a factory manual. Voila. :)

Andy Bettencourt
02-08-2011, 10:31 PM
Policing is 100% moot. Tech has NOTHING to do with legality. There is no difference between STx with non USDM stuff and IT right now. It's up to the competitors to know their competition. It's also a punk move to run something illegal like that. You want your ashtray that bad? Please.

Not 'why not'. WHY? The first real reason I heard was to provide a selection that was much better suited to 'racing'. I'll buy that some.

Mostly I just see it as providing SOME a better choice and not all. I like rules that help or hurt everyone.

Matt93SE
02-08-2011, 11:35 PM
Dont' have a coronary over there-- just voicing my opinion here. We're all allowed to do that, no?

The only time I've lifted the hood on my car at the track is to check the fluids. nobody has looked under my hood or even asked. If they did, I've got nothing to hide. My car is 100% within the rules and I plan to keep it that way, competitive or not.

If I were the cheating type, it would be easy to do and not get caught- at least for a while.

Ron Earp
02-09-2011, 12:32 AM
Why not have ANY motor of the displacement allowed by the class? Want a 2L Honda in your Dodge, why not?

If the Honda has non-US engines of similar displacement that fit the rules, but the VW does not, why should the VW be limited? Why shouldn't the VW be allowed to run a Honda motor of displacement that fits the rules?

Matt93SE
02-09-2011, 12:38 AM
Now that would just be silly.

Knestis
02-09-2011, 08:36 AM
But Ron has a point. We draw lines between "makes perfect sense" and "silly" all the time (see also, WASHER BOTTLES). They are arbitrary. That's why it's so damned important to get the first principles clear before the details are decided. This is (again, as I understand it) a pounds-per-cc class. At that point, who cares where the engine came from?

K

Andy Bettencourt
02-09-2011, 08:37 AM
Matt, no issues. Many of us hate it when the 'policing' flag is thrown. It's just not applicable. We can ll do that stuff now. We have to police ourselves.

Again, in order to get my vote, I like to see a real rason TO do it...because in this case, you are creating a situation where finding specifications in order to prove legality will be much harder.

DoubleXL240Z
02-09-2011, 09:12 AM
My vote is NO. We have a few people stating that their US engine could be replaced for 1000 with a JDM-yo whatever and they could make a million hp and run for 12 years etc etc!! I read it as "I can win with this engine and not spend alot!!" Then somebody will go out and find some obscure (read:expensive) euro spec RS500 what-have-you and kick their butt, then we add weight to them or something to slow them down. That was already mentioned somewhere on this board. This is the "case by case basis" I have heard about. Then try to put the cat back in the proverbial bag.
Open up ignitions, air intakes etc. keep the compression and cam specs, go out develop them and run em!! Keep the US engines!!
Rant off!! Anybody have any valium??

Greg Amy
02-09-2011, 09:29 AM
*IF* non-USDM engines were to be allowed in Super Touring, approval would be on a case-by-case basis and only after receipt of clear technical documentation of the engine(s) (e.g., supporting FSM data). It would not be a willy-nilly Wild West blanket approval of any random engine you'd like to try.

GA

Chip42
02-09-2011, 09:47 AM
reasons to: lack of viable entries for STL that don't say "honda" on the valve cover. seriously, the only real option seem to be a Toyota 2ZZ-GE or some 2L motors (SR20DE, MZR LF/Duratec, 2.0L Ecotech) and MAYBE a 1.8L mazda BP, or BMW. the new fiesta motor might give ford a 1.6L worth considering. this is not a growing segment, in general, in the US. diversity in the class will need more options.

STU - less of a need, however a number fo popular options exist and are well documented. because americans had to have torquey motors, the standard motor in the rest of the world was typically one a bit smaller and often much more suited to what we are doing here.

existing cars - there are JDM/EDM swapped cars runing around in track day clubs, marquee clubs, and NASA. some of these would make good entries for ST. we aren't hereing their votes if they aren't yet members, either.

reasons for, under "why not":
class concept APPEARS (no philosopphy yet published) that displacement is close to directly proportional to power under a blanket CR/valve lift scheme. country of origin of the motor doesn't matter in this scheme, why should the market it was sold into?

for SOME makes this could lead to affordable, reliable engines that fit well into the general scheme. some of these are evolutions of USDM motors (SR20DET, RWD SR20DE, SR16/20VE, 4A-GE 20V, later 3S-GE toyotas,...) others were never sold here at all (RB25DET, VW V5s, the rumored physics inverting rally homologation motor made of gold, whatever). speclines can be used to put over/unders at a weight in line with their actual power output.

reasons against:
"unnecessary" which I think depends on what car is in your garage

the arms race to import the physics inverting motor from above.

Andy Bettencourt
02-09-2011, 10:12 AM
My biggest issue is the potential lack of availablity of the specs for competitiors to police each other.

Chip42
02-09-2011, 10:48 AM
then support case by case allowance with sufficient US language documentation being a prerequisite. I think everyone on the FOR camp would be in support of this compromise.

Matt93SE
02-09-2011, 10:55 AM
My biggest issue is the potential lack of availablity of the specs for competitiors to police each other.

IMO, that's just as nonsensical as allowing the physics-defying uber motor above.. Almost every JDM engine I've seen used in the states has a pretty popular following and easily available documentation. I'm sure there are always exceptions, but the internet is a wonderful thing when used for more than just porn and arguing on forums. :D Information is easy to come by if you know where to look.

Andy Bettencourt
02-09-2011, 11:30 AM
IMO, that's just as nonsensical as allowing the physics-defying uber motor above.. Almost every JDM engine I've seen used in the states has a pretty popular following and easily available documentation. I'm sure there are always exceptions, but the internet is a wonderful thing when used for more than just porn and arguing on forums. :D Information is easy to come by if you know where to look.

Right. I think you are looking through this with JDM-colored glasses. Engines from other countries with a much smaller enthusiast following could be problematic.

Just trying to weigh the potential benefits with the potential problems.

Matt93SE
02-09-2011, 12:54 PM
Yes, I'm looking with that slant in mind.
Pretty much the same could be said for European cars as well, and I'd venture to guess most German or Italian makes have manuals available in English as well. Of course I could be wrong there, but I'd guess with Great Britain right next door, the manufacturers would supply service manuals in multiple languages.

What other cars would you expect to see in the class aside from US, Japanese, and European makes? I'm not expecting to see anything Russian or Arabic or Piglatin show up to race since those cars weren't available for sale in the US and thus violate rule #1.

shwah
02-09-2011, 02:04 PM
I vote yes. It would enable a broader range of marques to be class competitive. More options, more racers, more interesting to participate or watch.

I could see the need for approval following documentation of tech specs, but failed to vote that way.

JohnW
02-09-2011, 03:32 PM
I believe we are over thinking this.

Why can't a person select XYZ parts from across the globe if it fits the basic outline:

Under 3.0L displacement
12.0:1 max compression
0.6" max valve lift
6 spd max transmission.
weight = 1.1lb / cc displacement

There was a simple genius in the first rule-set that I found refreshing. Now we are set on dorking things up. Aren't there enough dorked up classes already?

I've stated over and over again- this is SUPER Touring. :dead_horse:

If Matt builds the worlds most bad-ass Nissan with fancy parts from South Africa and dominates, well SUCKS to be me. Back to the drawing board and I'm gonna find more juice in my Hondog.

This isn't spec miata.
This isn't Improved Touring.

Super Touring may not be for everyone.

Matt93SE
02-09-2011, 03:55 PM
don't worry.. I'm not looking for badass. I'm looking for the cheapest way to not get left behind like I am now! I don't plan for the car to be a barn-burner-just tired of being outrun by Spec Miatas with my truck engine.

JohnW
02-09-2011, 05:18 PM
don't worry.. I'm not looking for badass. I'm looking for the cheapest way to not get left behind like I am now! I don't plan for the car to be a barn-burner-just tired of being outrun by Spec Miatas with my truck engine.

Gotcha.

I just used you as my example. :023:

This class doesn't have to be stupid technical. We already have those type of classes.

lateapex911
02-09-2011, 06:54 PM
As it stands, it's a multi marque open to all class, based on the blindness of the classing system, which is X displacement = Y weight. (with cam lift limitatons across the board)

Limits that are placed after that premise, only serve to remove the basic "open to all" premise. UNlike IT's basic "BIG" caveat, which stated, "In IT there is no guarantee of competitiveness", competitive equality is expected...yet, due to the fact that actual horsepower is related to much more than just displacement, competitive equality will be in extremely short supply with such a lopsided ruleset.

The STAC needs to do everything in their power to either remove artificial horsepower limitations, or add a "We're not interested in multi marque even steven racing" in the cornerstone statement.

Chip42
02-10-2011, 10:12 AM
I wish I could be as succinct as Jake.

The following appear to be strongly held convictions or unshakable paradigms among some membership and the PTB
1 - a motor is a specified assemblage of parts, and mixing and matching on a production based class is not only unthinkable, but hard to police.
2 - such a thing needs policing (more so than bore, stroke, CR, valve lift, weight, etc...).
3 - that allowing competitors to break conviction #1 will mean crazy cost escalation and thus kills the class before it gets off the ground (this may well be true).
4 - that the rest of the world gets BETTER motors than we do, frequently, and that US racers must make due with their preferred marque's offerings to the average american vs. the average car buyer in whereveristan.
5 - That non-US engines do not have readily available parts lists, are rare, and expensive, and that allowing them is akin to breaking coviction #1.

I think at this point EVERYONE involved understands the limitations of the weight by displacement theory. NO ONE I have talked to wants to get into a production-like situation where weights are set willy nilly and cries of favoritism are rampant. there's a sincere desire to control costs (well, outside of gearboxes and shocks) by limiting what can be done to a motor - so no forged cranks or whatever.

There's an attempt here to balance the relevance (identifiable cars, from known manufacturers), accessibility (cost containment, a bar that does not appear out of reach), and regulatability (cost concerns and convictions lead to more angst here than might be waranted) of the class.

I for one support same brand/OEM swaps ONLY as they do provide some degree of category relevance to the manufacturers, and thus might lead to their involvement and/or support. I recognize the difficulty there with all of the mergers and acqusitions that have traded brands between OEMs in the last decade (is a volvo a ford? is a Geo prsim a toyota? the MB/chrystler/mitsubishi/kia/hyundai DSM/GEMA saga).

I support case-by-case approved out of market motors. this allows the needed supply, slows the arms race escalation, and keeps the desired documentation standards in place.

I support the "stock head and bottom end" philosophy of cost containment, and am willing to have spec line alternate weights as the limitations or advantages of a particular mill are recognized, so long as it is done more like IT (when it works) than prod in that it is open, repeatable, and not obviously subject to favoritism.

A big thanks to tGA/Chris C/Peter K/the rest of the STAC for putting up with the chatter - I know their intentions are good, and while nothing is ever perfect in the eyes of everyone, I believe they are trying, and I think that most of them and most of us are REALLY on the same page. I know there's more good things coming.

DoubleXL240Z
02-10-2011, 04:32 PM
Hypothetical:
Your JDM yo SR, ZZ, zxy whatever has a forged crank and my USDM acme doesn't. Why can't I upgrade to a like weighted forged crank for mine, and forged rods too? In the name of keeping costs down by not having to build a new motor everytime mine grenades, because of a cast crank.
Remember some manufacturers have a whizzbang JDM-yo engine, some don't. Is it fair than the Honda, Nissan, and Toyota guys can go to Japan and get a motor but the BMW guys can't?
Or what about the Cosworth engine that came in the Euro whatever?

Chip42
02-10-2011, 08:33 PM
what about the Cosworth engine that came in the Euro whatever?

bring
it
on

seriously, are we going to argue against the foreign motor because it's built better???? not it's physics inducing uber HP numbers, but because it might last while some penny-pinching, rough cast USDM pig iron crap doesn't?:blink:

I GET a cost escalation argument, but this is the first time I've heard it argued that a rule couldn't pass because it would save people money...

lateapex911
02-10-2011, 08:39 PM
Besides, what BMW could POSSIBLY be competitive in STL????

Matt93SE
02-10-2011, 09:15 PM
Who cares about STL? It's going to be dominated by Spec Miatas until the UberHondas get built, and then it's all over.

DoubleXL240Z
02-10-2011, 09:22 PM
I believe the M10 will actually respond quite well to ST rules. That in a 84 318i chassis would be fairly decent. Suspension has been figured out, brakes are decent, engine is bulletproof.
But, now I'm looking at the S14 that was in the M3, or maybe a Cosworth YBF from an RS escort!! I figure a $15k build on a S14 motor will be good for 350-370hp.

Z3_GoCar
02-11-2011, 12:20 AM
Besides, what BMW could POSSIBLY be competitive in STL????

Well for $75k euro's you could have an ex-Zinardi car:

http://www.racecarsdirect.com/listing/31246/BMW_320si_E90_Super_2000_Car_WTCC.html

But shipping from Turkey would be on your dime, and looks like a bunch of lead would be needed to make weight.

BTW, I don't think this should be legal to race in STx

lateapex911
02-11-2011, 01:32 AM
Who cares about STL? It's going to be dominated by Spec Miatas until the UberHondas get built, and then it's all over.
People with semi limited budgets who'd rather spend that money actually racing than buying expensive parts?
But, you're right, i worry the path you described is possibly accurate.

DoubleXL240Z
02-11-2011, 09:24 AM
Actually it won't need weight!! Its a 2 litre at 2116 lbs with the carbon bodywork! SCCA weight would be 2200 with driver and I'm only 295. If I could get down to 84 lbs I think it could be competitive!!
Actually it shows as being 1155 kg with driver, thats 2546 lbs!!

Chip42
02-11-2011, 10:10 AM
People with semi limited budgets who'd rather spend that money actually racing than buying expensive parts?
But, you're right, i worry the path you described is possibly accurate.

This si why I wish STL either WAS IT+ in terms of prep (cage, chassis) with some allowances for brakes to match the motors. add in JDM/EDM offerings, and keep prep levels as is.

prod cages and seam welding kinda make the "savings" point moot.

Matt93SE
02-11-2011, 10:40 AM
Well in that case, why wouldn't you just call it IT+ instead of Super Touring?

My perspective is that this is supposed to be a NEW class for SCCA, not IT w/ a hot asian girlfriend or a modernized version of Production...
so we should stop trying to carryover the rules and cars from IT and Prod and let the new class be a new class with a new philosophy.

Chip42
02-11-2011, 10:54 AM
Well in that case, why wouldn't you just call it IT+ instead of Super Touring?

My perspective is that this is supposed to be a NEW class for SCCA, not IT w/ a hot asian girlfriend or a modernized version of Production...
so we should stop trying to carryover the rules and cars from IT and Prod and let the new class be a new class with a new philosophy.

for U and O I completely agree. but the rulesmakers have stuck to an IT mindset on so much of the STL rules that they have kept it from "being" ST while also made a real IT-STL transition very expensive (chassis and cage work, and lots of it).

I'd fully support making STL the same rules as STU, with lower prep limits to the motor, no turbos, and more weight/cc. but that's not what it is. nor is it IT+. it's both, depending on what discrete rule you are reading. and that's pretty much it's greatest failing outside of the lack of diveristy expected at the pointy end.

Greg Amy
02-11-2011, 11:08 AM
This si why I wish STL either WAS IT+ in terms of prep (cage, chassis) with some allowances for brakes to match the motors.

Other than lack of allowance for brakes, what do you see as the primary factor(s) that make STL closer to "IT+" versus "STU-"? Generally speaking, we're philosophically well past the IT+ boundary, given polycarbonate "glass", plastic panels, seam welding, and cages.

GA

Chip42
02-11-2011, 11:22 AM
Other than lack of allowance for brakes, what do you see as the primary factor(s) that make STL closer to "IT+" versus "STU-"? Generally speaking, we're philosophically well past the IT+ boundary, given polycarbonate "glass", plastic panels, seam welding, and cages.

GA

I guess brakes stand out as the biggest IT mindset holdover. - we've discussed this and I think we're in 100% agreement. maybe make them smaller than U, but give class-wide maxima rather than what came on the tub.

suspension in STL is more likely to be FWD than anywhere else so the ability to have drop spindles/ball joint spacers and bump steer correction, and a mechanism to try and correct or tune scrub would be very helpful. yeah it adds costs, but that ship sailed with seam welds and wings.

weight adders/subtractors for FWD/RWD should be exactly as in STU. the 2 classes should have the same rules with different maxima and weight/cc tables. if it's desired, keep dry sumps and turbos out of L. but other than that - there shouldn't be a difference. the classes should be as simillar as ITS and A, even if the IT and ST category rules are completely different.

Rabbit07
02-11-2011, 12:18 PM
Guys,

To make this official, I wrote a letter last month to request JDM engines with documentation. I think it is good ffor the class, but not all involved do.

lateapex911
02-11-2011, 01:43 PM
Chris, I think that's a good first step. (But why only JDM?)
But, I hope the STAC takes the time to sit down and before the request letter arrives, creates a policy that describes what they will require to allow any request. This policy should be public information, and available to all on the website, and anyone should be able to determine whether their request will be granted just by reading it.
I say this for a number of reasons, but a major one is the SCCA PTBs historical insistence on refusing to make a standard and stick with it, and the resultant messes that our classes become. (Look at IT to see all the work it took to get back to actual performance envelopes for each class, now imagine if those were thrown away and classing was done as it was, on hunches, feelings and arguments).
Secondly, constituents will have no reason to even THINK there can be any monkeying around with the request. it won't be subject to a certain committee persons bias.

Greg Amy
02-11-2011, 02:19 PM
Chris, I think that's a good first step. (But why only JDM?)
He actually requested "non-USDM". I think we tend to revert to using a generic "JDM" (yo!) for everything not-US, like "Kleenex".

I hope the STAC takes the time to sit down and before the request letter arrives, creates a policy that describes what they will require to allow any request...Nothing will happen on this issue without significant membership input.

GA

Rabbit07
02-12-2011, 11:37 AM
Here was my request.

"
Letter #3798
Title: Include Non USDM Engines
Request: Please include non US Market engines. I suggest that these engine packages be approved on a case by case basis. Require a VTS to be generated and that those packages can only run by that "STU" VTS. Competitors will be required to sumit documentation to support requested classifications."

I did this to officalize it and get it into the system. Keep in mind that this was my suggestion, not writen into law. My thinking is that all non US Market engine packages would need to have a VTS, just like an ex WC touring car.

lateapex911
02-12-2011, 11:59 AM
So it's for STU only?
:(
That seems to fail to help fix the most glaring issue of the ST category, the apparent lack of diverse options for competitive STL cars, and allowing SOME diversity for STL could have helped in that regard.

Rabbit07
02-12-2011, 12:06 PM
I am open to the idea in STL also. My proposal was with VTS allowances. That right now seems to be something that we are staying away from in STL. I am for it if we can find an "easy" button for it.

Greg Amy
02-12-2011, 04:31 PM
So it's for STU only?
Hater! ;)

STL is Regional-Only right now. Let's get our National house in order and see how that works out first, then we can let things flow downhill. I'd prefer to see exactly what it is that's going to flow downhill first...

Matt93SE
02-12-2011, 10:38 PM
I'll just say that I've been at the bottom of the hill for 5 years at my current job. there's only ONE thing that rolls downhill, and trust me.... you guys want nothing of it.

Chip42
02-23-2011, 11:10 PM
alright - I expect the STAC to get 34 letters about the USDM thing from the March Fastrack as that's how many votes we have on the issue here, and I know you are the motivated set.

I'd LIKE you all to vote FOR allowing non-USDM motors, but all I'm asking is that you submit your letter with your opinion and your reasons.

Matt93SE
02-24-2011, 01:23 PM
#4259 Submitted.

Greg Amy
03-01-2011, 10:11 AM
alright - I expect the STAC to get 34 letters...
We've received three.

There's no rush; after all, this is a rule change and would not go into affect until 2012. But if you have an opinion, best to make it known... - GA

CRallo
03-01-2011, 10:37 AM
We've received three.

There's no rush; after all, this is a rule change and would not go into affect until 2012. But if you have an opinion, best to make it known... - GA

Its on my todo list :)

I feel pretty strongly about this and I need some practice writing letters to the CRB/ITAC/STAC/ETC so I will be ready to write in regarding the V8 Camaro and Firebird in ITR...

Chip42
03-01-2011, 03:35 PM
We've received three.

There's no rush; after all, this is a rule change and would not go into affect until 2012. But if you have an opinion, best to make it known... - GA

Seeing as I'm on record with the request, would a letter in support of myself cary any weight?

Greg Amy
03-01-2011, 03:47 PM
Seeing as I'm on record with the request, would a letter in support of myself cary any weight?
No need, I'll ensure your old letter is added into the pile. - GA

Matt93SE
03-01-2011, 08:44 PM
Greg, if you're just looking for filler, pull up #2428 from last August and throw it on the pile too. :)

Greg Amy
03-01-2011, 09:15 PM
Greg, if you're just looking for filler, pull up #2428 from last August and throw it on the pile too. :)
Done.

Matt93SE
04-27-2011, 06:40 PM
Sooooo.... Any progress on this?
Changed the coolant in my car over the weekend and I'm finding more oil in the water than there was last time I changed it. this engine is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

Greg Amy
04-27-2011, 09:06 PM
Sooooo.... Any progress on this?
Nope. We have to give it a few months waiting for membership input before we can make a recommendation to the CRB...stay tuned. - GA

Matt93SE
04-28-2011, 12:38 AM
I figured that's where we were. Do I need to have the rest of the local STU fanbois write letters too? :)

Greg Amy
04-28-2011, 06:56 AM
Of course. Members may not realize it, that while this isn't a pure democracy vote, many issues are resolved either way based on only a handful of letters. For example, I think we only have about 6-7 letters on this issue...

Our next concall is Monday, I don't know if this issue is on the agenda.

Matt93SE
04-28-2011, 11:34 AM
For example, I think we only have about 6-7 letters on this issue...

Our next concall is Monday, I don't know if this issue is on the agenda.

That's nuts. for all the talk I see everywhere about it, you'd think more than 5 people would have taken the time to write in.

I'll hit up the other STU guys and make sure they write in.

lateapex911
04-28-2011, 02:58 PM
I wrote in! But I don't have an ST car. Not sure if my opinion counts, LOL

Greg Amy
04-28-2011, 03:11 PM
Not sure if my opinion counts, LOL
Depends on which way you voted... ;)

(Juuuust kidding.)

lateapex911
04-28-2011, 06:56 PM
I voted to disallow Integra motors with Type Arrrrrrrr valve covers. ;)

Matt93SE
05-02-2011, 11:34 PM
I'll second that. ;)

Greg Amy
06-15-2011, 01:02 PM
CRB hath spoken thusly:


July Fastrack:
1. #3798/#4256/4259 (Christopher Childs/ Josh Baldwin/Matt Blehm) Include Non-USDM Engines Non-USDM engines will not be permitted in ST due to limited availability of some non-USDM engines and difficulties in compliance enforcement.

lateapex911
06-15-2011, 01:34 PM
Regarding the compliance aspect, I was under the impression that only engines with full tech specs would be approved. So I'm not understanding how they can object from a compliance standpoint.

The lack of supply is a reason I hadn't thought of. My (very general) impression was that USDM engines were often more rare than non USDM engines. I'm sure certain units are rare, of course.

Chip42
06-15-2011, 03:33 PM
yeah - what Jake said. "per engine, with documentation" was the approval process I thought we were supporting. in that light, the reasons given for the refusal are complete BS.

the best reason I can see for this is hopes for manufacturer invovlement with newer cars by keeping strong, known quantities out. Lack of supply is irrelevant / can be part of the approval equation. in IT we call that "warts and all" in ST it is apprently reason enough to turn people away. good job, CRB.

whatever, saves me money.

Matt93SE
06-15-2011, 11:43 PM
How do you enforce compliance on a USDM engine? bore, stroke, compression, cam lift.. no?
all those specs are readily published for any engine made by a reputable automaker.

limited availability? There are about 100 SR20DET engines on ebay right now. probably another 20-30 locally within a few phone calls.

I want to meet the guy that makes these responses...... he sure sounds like an Einstein. ;)

CRallo
06-16-2011, 01:39 AM
Are they serious?!?! That is complete BS! Way to cut out half the ricer kids that we need, like it or not!

NTM class parity... Some makes really need help

Sooooooooo stupid! They had a chance here and they blew it! Now I'm even beginning to lose faith! I've been a blind SCCA follower, if they keep this up, that will change

Greg Amy
06-16-2011, 06:54 AM
No clue how much is public info (in my mind, we're a club, it's all public) but there were a handful or so member letters, fewer than 10 as I recall, maybe only a couple opposed to the idea. The STAC recommended the allowance for non-USDM engines with the requirement that each engine be approved on a case-by-case basis, and only if the request was accompanied by sufficient detailed specifications to ensure proper classification (i.e., power level) and subsequent scrutineering compliance.

The request was denied by the CRB. I am not privvy to the discussion, but my inference and personal opinion is that one or more persons on the CRB is opposed to the idea of non-US-market engines no matter the details. I don't know the basis for that opposition. At this point I don't think there's anything we can do to satisfy these concerns, therefore I consider the idea stillborn.

GA

Matt93SE
06-16-2011, 10:21 AM
Greg. I now make it your mission to find the retarded guy on the CRB and see to it they are removed from the Board.

I think it's hilarious they site 'lack of availability' when I emailed Peter Keane a copy of a service manual- in English no less- and there were more 240SXs produced with the SR20 than there were with the KA24.

Hell it's EASIER to get parts for the SR than for the KA. that's one of the reasons why I want to switch!

But yeah. there's surely some big old Corvette-driving redneck on the CRB that just says no. Even though STU and STL are dominated by Japanese cars, we can't use the engines they came with. SMART!

OK, I'll shut up now and start looking for junkyard parts to fix my worn out truck engine.

Greg Amy
06-16-2011, 10:32 AM
OK, I'll shut up now and start looking for junkyard parts to fix my worn out truck engine.
I suggest a US-spec SR20DE with 12:1 compression, .600 cams/springs/retainers, and rods/bolts can make well over 220 ponies at the crank and a boatload of torque all the way up to 8000 RPM. That head casting is as good as the SR20VE one, you'll start with an NX high-port head, and you'll port it for airflow.

You don't need no steenkin' turbo.

GA

Matt93SE
06-16-2011, 06:18 PM
Sounds good in theory.. how much will that cost me, and how do I fit the FWD head and intake mani into my car without chopping half the firewall away?
:)

...Or I could just drop in a fawking stock SR20DET, throw in some bigger injectors and make 300hp. on 93 octane. for about $3500.

Greg Amy
06-16-2011, 07:32 PM
...how do I fit the FWD head and intake mani into my car without chopping half the firewall away?
"...If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is installed in a rear wheel drive vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds may be considered."


...Or I could just drop in a fawking stock SR20DET, throw in some bigger injectors and make 300hp. on 93 octane. for about $3500.Dude, we wouldn't give you that. To get that kinda horsepower you'd need a large restrictor thus enough weight to choke an elephant... - GA

Z3_GoCar
06-16-2011, 09:43 PM
You guy's are just looking at this through your JDM colored glasses. If they'd open this up, Ben could have imported one of the 4 Porsche 968 RS turbos and we'd all be screwed. Or I could go looking for one of the few tens of S42 made, with a 315hp 2liter, I'd take your turbo's on any time.

My motor should get a different intake manifold if it were to make the expected power, which I know it won't get, so I'm looking to swap out for an older motor which will make its expected power.

Matt93SE
06-16-2011, 11:04 PM
"...If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is installed in a rear wheel drive vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds may be considered."
The problem is the head is different for RWD too. Distributor is over the tranny on a FWD car.
http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs090.snc3/15732_102825556404815_100000321139057_74347_595353 3_n.jpg

No RWD SR of any sort was available in the states, so unless I cut a 6" hole out of the firewall, the SR can't be run in this car.

That leaves me with a VG30 (too heavy), KA (sucks), or VQ30 (too heavy). I've been on the prowl for a USDM VQ25, but nobody has a wrecked G25 that I can find around here... at least not one I'm willing to buy the whole car for.


Dude, we wouldn't give you that. To get that kinda horsepower you'd need a large restrictor thus enough weight to choke an elephant... - GA

my plan was to get the car as light as I can, then size a restrictor based on that and tune from there. we were figuring at 2600lb, we could make about 300hp.
I don't see how that's unreasonable power since several local competitors are making similar power/weight numbers.

CRallo
06-17-2011, 12:01 AM
And then they'd disallow that just like they already have a couple other things...


You guy's are just looking at this through your JDM colored glasses. If they'd open this up, Ben could have imported one of the 4 Porsche 968 RS turbos and we'd all be screwed. Or I could go looking for one of the few tens of S42 made, with a 315hp 2liter, I'd take your turbo's on any time.

My motor should get a different intake manifold if it were to make the expected power, which I know it won't get, so I'm looking to swap out for an older motor which will make its expected power.

Chip42
06-17-2011, 12:01 AM
Matt, ignition is now open so that argument goes away with a liberal application of $$$.

but otherwise, Z3, this is not a JDM colored glasses thing - this is a cost benefit thing. with allowance per request, there's no way a small run uber motor would be allowed. it's this sort of crap that killed a perfectly good concept. thanks.

DoubleXL240Z
06-17-2011, 07:23 AM
It is a JDM-yo colored glasses thing! It is a small handful of people wanting something that most don't think necessary.
Chris says "Are they serious?!?! That is complete BS! Way to cut out half the ricer kids that we need, like it or not!" Do you really think that those ricer kids are going to go out and build an actual racecar out of their cars, I seriously doubt it! We won't allow the terry cloth shoulder belt covers!
Someone asked early on "WHY" do we need this???" 2 or 3 people said "It will be better for me" thats about what I pulled out of it.
What about me putting a Honda motor in my BMW??? If you can put a JDM-yo ZZ, SR, whatever in your car(because), why not a Honda in a BMW? Why stop there?
Chip, a liberal application of money to eliminate a distributor??
I've ruffled enough feathers! Peace out!!

Chip42
06-17-2011, 09:11 AM
Way to cut out half the ricer kids that we need, like it or not!" Do you really think that those ricer kids are going to go out and build an actual racecar out of their cars, I seriously doubt it! We won't allow the terry cloth shoulder belt covers!
Someone asked early on "WHY" do we need this???" 2 or 3 people said "It will be better for me" thats about what I pulled out of it.
c'mon chris - if it's easier to get wher eyou want to go, from available sources, without creating an overdog, why not do it for the good of the class?


What about me putting a Honda motor in my BMW??? If you can put a JDM-yo ZZ, SR, whatever in your car(because), why not a Honda in a BMW? Why stop there?
what exactly are you trying to promote? one group was arguing for a low cost source of better parts for our use than those sold in the USDM, seemingly within the spirit of the rules, and a bunch of the advisory committee guys seem to agree. you are making silly arguments about brand swaps? really? how are they even an extension of one another? no one is begging for the ultra-rare uber box, they are looking for an easy "get me to the track, reliably" solution that is readily available and fits mechancially without pushing them overweight. seriously, you sound rediculous. yeah, I know, your side won...


Chip, a liberal application of money to eliminate a distributor??

the avaialble solutions are not rediculously expensive, but compared with not having to do anything to get it on track, they seem to be.

DoubleXL240Z
06-17-2011, 11:08 AM
Chip, there is nothing that drastically wrong with any of the domestic offerings! Matt wants an SR motor, there are millions of KA motors and parts out there, there are tons of domestic engines out there that will fit and perform without a hitch.
What you are saying is I want a cheap whizz bang JDM-yo alternative, but if you find a JDM-yo, EDM motor thats faster than mine than it might not be allowed(case by case basis)!! Now we have a line in the sand that can be moved when there is a big wave.
Its been proven, over and over again, there are people who will spend ridiculus amounts of money to win a trophy. 70-80k IT cars are not that uncommon. This is considered a step above that class.
So, when somebody does their homework and finds that 968 Turbo motor, Cosworth something something etc that has the possibility to kill the SRs, 2gt, wha-have-yous than you'll yell that they can't play. The way it is now, we know, with reasonable certainty, what engines are out there, blacklisted a few, and we can race!!
I still don't see the need for it!

lateapex911
06-17-2011, 11:28 AM
Chris, you're missing the big picture. One, you state that the proponents are upsest that this didn't pass, although most were against it. Actually, the response was overwhelmingly in favor, and not by a little. So most DID want it.

But the big thing you're really missing is that it has nothing to do with JDM yo coolness and scnizzle...it has to do with the design of the class.

The class is based on displacement to weight. THATS IT. So, the best X litre engine will win. As the rules stand, the entire intake tract is left pretty much stock, and among the decent engines that could be used to race, the hugest variable are the components in the intake tract. So, what the rules REALLY say, is, find the best intake tract, and you'll have the obvious candidate for the most power per litre, and, since you have some freedom in chassis choice, you'll likely have the car to beat.

It really boils down to that. All engines are not created equal, but this cornerstone philosophy that's been the foundation of thae class assumes so, unless the originators of the class desired one engine to dominate.

Allowing ANY more options is a good thing Chris, because it opens the class up to more options. The STAC isn't going to approve of engines that would tilt the class on it's head. Ignore the financial aspects...those are red herrings. Who cares if the allowance costs more? Or less? Or is plentiful? Or rare? Does NOT matter, as long as it's an even allowance, it's all good, as it gives the class and the drivers more options..

Matt93SE
06-17-2011, 11:28 AM
It is a JDM-yo colored glasses thing! It is a small handful of people wanting something that most don't think necessary.
Chris says "Are they serious?!?! That is complete BS! Way to cut out half the ricer kids that we need, like it or not!" Do you really think that those ricer kids are going to go out and build an actual racecar out of their cars, I seriously doubt it! We won't allow the terry cloth shoulder belt covers!
Someone asked early on "WHY" do we need this???" 2 or 3 people said "It will be better for me" thats about what I pulled out of it.
What about me putting a Honda motor in my BMW??? If you can put a JDM-yo ZZ, SR, whatever in your car(because), why not a Honda in a BMW? Why stop there?
Chip, a liberal application of money to eliminate a distributor??
I've ruffled enough feathers! Peace out!!

Hi.. that's me. I'm driving one of those "drift cars." I built my little rice box specifically for STU with the specific intention of swapping in one of these engines- which was allowed under the 2008 and 2009 rules until they re-worded the rules to include only US-spec engines.


Why am I asking for an alternate engine?
Can you name me ONE sub-3L Nissan engine that fits in a RWD chassis and makes more than 200hp for under $5000.
go ahead. start looking. you won't find one. I've been hopping up Nissans for 12 years now and haven't seen one yet.

Mazda 3 has an engine with more power than that, stock. So does BMW. Hondas rev to 12 million rpms so they get there too.

The engine I asked for is not an uber-engine. There are a hundred thousand or so of them out there. It was the engine that came in this chassis from the factory for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IT WAS SOLD IN. The US/Canada is the ONLY place they put the KA24DE in this car. Europe, Japan, Africa, and Australia all got the SR20DE (non-turbo) or SR20DET (turbo).
The reason they're so popular here is because they're relatively cheap (you can swap one from $1000 to $5000, depending on condition), they make good power- on pump gas no less, and they're RELIABLE.
I'm not wanting to do the swap because it would crush the competition.. It would merely put Nissan on a level playing field with the power/liter that Subaru, Mazda, Audi, VW, and Mitsubishi are putting out with their small-bore turbo engines.


Excuse me, Old World Thinking... Japan would like through please.
http://blehmco.com/pics/track_pics/tws/2011%20May%20Lone%20Star%20Dbl%20Nat/DSC2926.jpg

DoubleXL240Z
06-21-2011, 12:09 PM
Matt, I have a deal for you!! 2007 IS250 engine and 6 speed transmission, complete 40,000 miles, RWD!!
$4000 you pick it up or $4200 with me leaving Orlando and you leaving Houston, and we meet somewhere near Peniscola!!!

DoubleXL240Z
06-21-2011, 01:01 PM
Guys, I'm not trying to be a douchebag. I just don't think "a case by case" basis is a fair setup. It leaves an "open" desicion making process, which is very easy to slant one way or another.
In STU the Integra type R, and the S2K engine are not allowed, too much potential, OK! When we allow the JDM-yo SR, 2GTE or whatever, then say "case by case" there is always room for bias. If Ben gets the 968 RS motor, and I find some obscure BMW limited production motor that has the potential to kick ass, then "in this case " its not approved!! I cry foul, or somebody finds something else with potential, it gets approved then the SR, ZZ guys say that motor will kill us 'NO FAIR'!!
I believe that within the USDM there is a level playing field, if not a known playing field, no surprises. With an open border scenario there is going to be surprises. then the horse is out of the gate. How do we get him back in.
You say Ignore the financial aspects...those are red herrings. Who cares if the allowance costs more? Or less? Or is plentiful? Or rare? Does NOT matter, as long as it's an even allowance, it's all good, as it gives the class and the drivers more options..
Chip said"what exactly are you trying to promote? one group was arguing for a low cost source of better parts for our use than those sold in the USDM, seemingly within the spirit of the rules, and a bunch of the advisory committee guys seem to agree. you are making silly arguments about brand swaps? really? how are they even an extension of one another? no one is begging for the ultra-rare uber box, they are looking for an easy "get me to the track, reliably" solution that is readily available and fits mechancially without pushing them overweight. seriously, you sound rediculous. yeah, I know, your side won...
Both Chip and Matt say 1000 dollars gets them a motor, and a low cost alternative. But Jake says ignore financial. We all know if one can spend another can overspend!! We have IT cars that approach $100k, what will happen here when that happens? An SR motor with 15k in developement makes what HP? Just throwing this out there!
Oh and Chip its ridiculous!!:o
Love you guys!!!:)

Matt93SE
06-22-2011, 02:19 AM
Matt, I have a deal for you!! 2007 IS250 engine and 6 speed transmission, complete 40,000 miles, RWD!!
$4000 you pick it up or $4200 with me leaving Orlando and you leaving Houston, and we meet somewhere near Peniscola!!!

Would be nice if I drove a Toyota. :)

DoubleXL240Z
06-22-2011, 07:40 AM
DDDOOOOHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:shrug::shrug::blink ::blink:
signed,
A. Dumass

shwah
06-22-2011, 02:51 PM
I saw this as a class diversity opportunity.

There are some makes that just don't have a US spec motor that will breathe as well on the intake side as it needs to for success in this class.

However, if the STAC decides that they will adjust makes that don't have competitive powerplants available, I think the same level of diverse competitive options can be achieved.

Mrsideways
06-22-2011, 05:11 PM
Hi.. that's me. I'm driving one of those "drift cars." I built my little rice box specifically for STU with the specific intention of swapping in one of these engines- which was allowed under the 2008 and 2009 rules until they re-worded the rules to include only US-spec engines.


Why am I asking for an alternate engine?
Can you name me ONE sub-3L Nissan engine that fits in a RWD chassis and makes more than 200hp for under $5000.
go ahead. start looking. you won't find one. I've been hopping up Nissans for 12 years now and haven't seen one yet.

Mazda 3 has an engine with more power than that, stock. So does BMW. Hondas rev to 12 million rpms so they get there too.

The engine I asked for is not an uber-engine. There are a hundred thousand or so of them out there. It was the engine that came in this chassis from the factory for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IT WAS SOLD IN. The US/Canada is the ONLY place they put the KA24DE in this car. Europe, Japan, Africa, and Australia all got the SR20DE (non-turbo) or SR20DET (turbo).
The reason they're so popular here is because they're relatively cheap (you can swap one from $1000 to $5000, depending on condition), they make good power- on pump gas no less, and they're RELIABLE.
I'm not wanting to do the swap because it would crush the competition.. It would merely put Nissan on a level playing field with the power/liter that Subaru, Mazda, Audi, VW, and Mitsubishi are putting out with their small-bore turbo engines.


Excuse me, Old World Thinking... Japan would like through please.
http://blehmco.com/pics/track_pics/tws/2011%20May%20Lone%20Star%20Dbl%20Nat/DSC2926.jpg


Matt, How about the Turbo Motor out of the Nissan Juke?

Chip42
06-22-2011, 09:40 PM
Matt, How about the Turbo Motor out of the Nissan Juke?

At 1.6L and with a small, economy minded turbo, probobly not a great fit. And the point of the SR20DET is the low price, easy firment, reliability, availability, and good stock turbo.

Even if it were a good fit, and it migh be I just bet it won't, its new, and nisan can barely keep up with demand of the whole car, so the price of the mill is likely to be quite high, relatively speaking.

I guess STU is going to be a rich mans playground for a long time. While that is the inevitable conclusion, I was really hoping for a few years of creativeand thrifty home brewed cars running up front. Oh well.

Z3_GoCar
06-22-2011, 11:41 PM
I suggest a US-spec SR20DE with 12:1 compression, .600 cams/springs/retainers, and rods/bolts can make well over 220 ponies at the crank and a boatload of torque all the way up to 8000 RPM. That head casting is as good as the SR20VE one, you'll start with an NX high-port head, and you'll port it for airflow.

You don't need no steenkin' turbo.

GA

I'd listen to Greg, he knows Nissans. Request an alternate intake manifold, and add a crank-fire ignition tied to a custom ecu. If you can get a non-honda at more than 220hp, then you're doing well.

Matt93SE
06-23-2011, 01:46 AM
I'd listen to Greg, he knows Nissans. Request an alternate intake manifold, and add a crank-fire ignition tied to a custom ecu. If you can get a non-honda at more than 220hp, then you're doing well.

sure.. that's fine and dandy. in theory.
Care to hand over the money it's going to take to build that engine? I sure as hell can't afford it.
The ECU and ignition alone would cost 75% of the cost of a JDM-swap. throw in that much more for the NA-SR engine, aftermarket manifold, fabrication, and another $1000 or so for tuning. no thanks. that's my budget for an entire season of racin.

Mrsideways
06-23-2011, 07:56 AM
At 1.6L and with a small, economy minded turbo, probobly not a great fit. And the point of the SR20DET is the low price, easy firment, reliability, availability, and good stock turbo.

Even if it were a good fit, and it migh be I just bet it won't, its new, and nisan can barely keep up with demand of the whole car, so the price of the mill is likely to be quite high, relatively speaking.

I guess STU is going to be a rich mans playground for a long time. While that is the inevitable conclusion, I was really hoping for a few years of creativeand thrifty home brewed cars running up front. Oh well.

The Mini's with small economy minded turbos and 1.6 Motors are getting to 250whp and 300wtq.
I was hoping the same for a couple years of inexpensively running up front. But until someone ties a boat anchor to the back of the WC cars it aint gonna happen. Takes BIG bucks to beat one of those things if they are well driven.

Greg Amy
06-23-2011, 08:21 AM
But until someone ties a boat anchor to the back of the WC cars it aint gonna happen.
WC guys are complaining the weight we added to allow them to compete is too much. Non-WC competitors are complaining it's not enough.

Sounds like we got it about right... ;)

As an aside, compare the Real Time Acura TSX World Challenge car to what you think PD's organization would do if someone walked up to them with a blank checkbook and said "build me an STU-spec Acura TSX". I think you'd find very little performance difference between the two, considering the extra 300# and the 48mm restrictor the WC car has to have. And, if Real Time took their existing (JDM-spec) 12.5:1 K24A engine out and built up a 12:1 USDM-spec engine within the allowed cam specs (about 50% more valve lift than allowed by WC), removed the intake restrictor and removed the 300# of ballast, I think you'd agree they'd have a pretty stout package.

Be careful what you ask for...

GA

Mrsideways
06-23-2011, 09:03 AM
WC guys are complaining the weight we added to allow them to compete is too much. Non-WC competitors are complaining it's not enough.

Sounds like we got it about right... ;)

As an aside, compare the Real Time Acura TSX World Challenge car to what you think PD's organization would do if someone walked up to them with a blank checkbook and said "build me an STU-spec Acura TSX". I think you'd find very little performance difference between the two, considering the extra 300# and the 48mm restrictor the WC car has to have. And, if Real Time took their existing (JDM-spec) 12.5:1 K24A engine out and built up a 12:1 USDM-spec engine within the allowed cam specs (about 50% more valve lift than allowed by WC), removed the intake restrictor and removed the 300# of ballast, I think you'd agree they'd have a pretty stout package.

Be careful what you ask for...

GA

But they'd have to run the USDM intake manifold.

Greg Amy
06-23-2011, 09:21 AM
But they'd have to run the USDM intake manifold.
And the USDM throttle body. But they'd lose the 48mm flat-plate restrictor and 300 pounds of ballast.

I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I don't know this for a fact, but the easiest guess why they're not actually doing it is because they're also using these cars for World Challenge GTS. But mark my words, if STU remains popular it's coming some day.

GA

Z3_GoCar
06-23-2011, 09:59 PM
sure.. that's fine and dandy. in theory.
Care to hand over the money it's going to take to build that engine? I sure as hell can't afford it.
The ECU and ignition alone would cost 75% of the cost of a JDM-swap. throw in that much more for the NA-SR engine, aftermarket manifold, fabrication, and another $1000 or so for tuning. no thanks. that's my budget for an entire season of racin.

I understand, not many racers out here are flush with cash. But, $1k for tuning is about twice as much as you'll need. I run an older TecII circa '01-'02 world challenge, it cost me $300 for half a day of dyno time and $200 for the tuner, and that was for a tune from scratch. I think it's not as hard or as expensive as you're making it.

Here's a four cylinder version for sale $400

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2036895

Xian
06-30-2011, 08:47 PM
Not that I really have a dog in the fight anymore but the decision on non-USDM engines is disappointing. I really think the 240 with the non-turbo SR engine would have been a HOT setup. Not overdog hot but "compete with the Honda's and Miata" Hot.

Christian, who, if he had a 240SX, would be awfully tempted to run an illlleeeegul JDM SR20DE anyway.

Matt93SE
07-01-2011, 12:51 AM
The SR20DE without turbo would be perfect for STL. For STU it just won't make enough power. ~215whp at 2500lbs (because that's about as light as you can get the car under ST rules) vs. 350whp at 3300lbs.

The SR20DET would be a good match against the Mazdaspeed3, A4 turbo, Golf GTI, and etc that are dominating STU in our area..

Talked to a local engine builder today who said it would take roughly $8000 to make the KA24DE put out 225whp-- at 2640lbs. going to keep bugging the CRB about allowing the SR while I run this engine into the ground since I sure as sheit can't afford to compete at that kind of money.

lateapex911
07-01-2011, 03:07 AM
$8K???? That's actually pretty reasonable, if it's not a grenade with the pin already pulled. Milledge (A known sharp Porsche 4cyl. guru) charged a minimum of $15K for the basic motor rebuild, and then you went to the dyno, and added an ECU. He liked MoTec, IIRC. So, you were talking mid 20s all said and done.

I guarantee that there are SM motors that are more than $8K.
And lot's of IT motors as well. I shudder to think what Autoechnic has spent on it's E46 ITS BMW motors.

Matt93SE
07-01-2011, 01:21 PM
That doesn't mean it should be the norm.
That's one of the things that REALLY frustrates me with SCCA. You can make a lot more reliable and faster car for a lot cheaper if some of the rules weren't stuck in the stone ages. up until about last year, Prod guys were required to run leaded fuel. For anything built in the 90s or newer, you had to build the engine differently speficifcally so it would survive with leaded gas. that's bassackwards, IMO.

Given the fact the average import owner (Honda, Nissan, Audi, VW, Mazda, etc) can build a 350hp engine that will last 100,000 miles for under $5k in his garage, it's just ludicrous that I should be required to spend upwards of $8k to build a 220whp, 100hour engine is ludicrous. The rest of my car has barely cost that much!

Greg Amy
07-01-2011, 01:27 PM
Given the fact the average import owner (Honda, Nissan, Audi, VW, Mazda, etc) can build a 350hp engine that will last 100,000 miles for under $5k in his garage, it's just ludicrous that I should be required to spend upwards of $8k to build a 220whp, 100hour engine...
The rules aren't designed for that possibility. They're designed for the probability that another guy will take that same "...350hp engine that will last 100,000 miles for under $5k," spend $10k on it, and get 425hp. And not care how long it lasts.

You can't legislate dollars. But you can legislate ultimate performance. And the class reg are built around that...

GA

Matt93SE
07-01-2011, 02:50 PM
I can't argue with that either..

... And that's why NASA's Performance Touring setup is so popular. unfortuantely the unscrupulous are screwing that up too with 'cheater ECUs' and whatnot... but simply limiting power to weight ratios and letting people do what they want to get there is a damn good idea to me..

Xian
07-01-2011, 09:36 PM
$8K???? That's actually pretty reasonable, if it's not a grenade with the pin already pulled. Milledge (A known sharp Porsche 4cyl. guru) charged a minimum of $15K for the basic motor rebuild, and then you went to the dyno, and added an ECU. He liked MoTec, IIRC. So, you were talking mid 20s all said and done.

I guarantee that there are SM motors that are more than $8K.
And lot's of IT motors as well. I shudder to think what Autoechnic has spent on it's E46 ITS BMW motors.

Yep. A common IT D16 (CRX/Civic) is in the $3-4k range if it's from scratch.


That doesn't mean it should be the norm.
That's one of the things that REALLY frustrates me with SCCA. You can make a lot more reliable and faster car for a lot cheaper if some of the rules weren't stuck in the stone ages. up until about last year, Prod guys were required to run leaded fuel. For anything built in the 90s or newer, you had to build the engine differently speficifcally so it would survive with leaded gas. that's bassackwards, IMO.

Given the fact the average import owner (Honda, Nissan, Audi, VW, Mazda, etc) can build a 350hp engine that will last 100,000 miles for under $5k in his garage, it's just ludicrous that I should be required to spend upwards of $8k to build a 220whp, 100hour engine is ludicrous. The rest of my car has barely cost that much!

As Greg points out, you can't legislate cubic dollars. The best you can hope for is to create a point of diminishing returns for those intent on spending their way to max parts/power. I also guaran-damn-tee you that the engines you reference lasting 100k miles sure as shit aren't race engines. Street car? Sure, I'm with you 100%. No. Way. In. Hell. that a race engine will last that long and still have the same performance it had at the beginning.

FWIW, I'll bet that most IT folks would be pretty happy with a 100 hour engine that's still making competitive power. If you figure 1 hour total race/qual time per event, 100 hours is about 5 double weekends per year for 10 years. If all you have to do is pull the head to freshen it after half that many seasons, you'll be doing really well in most cases.


The rules aren't designed for that possibility. They're designed for the probability that another guy will take that same "...350hp engine that will last 100,000 miles for under $5k," spend $10k on it, and get 425hp. And not care how long it lasts.

You can't legislate dollars. But you can legislate ultimate performance. And the class reg are built around that...

GA

Bingo.


I can't argue with that either..

... And that's why NASA's Performance Touring setup is so popular. unfortuantely the unscrupulous are screwing that up too with 'cheater ECUs' and whatnot... but simply limiting power to weight ratios and letting people do what they want to get there is a damn good idea to me..

NASA's PT classes are popular b/c there haven't been 2 people who "really" wanted to win. The instant you have 2 guys with the drive and funds, it turns into a spending war (either in build $$, testing, tires, whatever). PT is what it is right now b/c it's in its infancy. Give it time and the point juggling, track specific setups will begin to show up. That's without even talking about the potential problems of dyno classing and re-classing (advantage to fast spool turbo engines that have very flat power/torque curves) along with the potential for multi-map ECU's, etc, etc. Cool idea but it'll have its share of growing pains..

Remember, this is racing and folks are going to want to win. It's very difficult to make a ruleset (that will work) where used, junk-yard, stock engines are the "go to" winning option. I'd also argue that a class for retired WC cars is about as far from that idea as you can get and still be on the same planet.

Christian, who probably sounds like a jerk but doesn't mean to.

Matt93SE
07-02-2011, 12:09 AM
Completely understood and valid points. The big issue is there are easy options where people can make cheap, reliable power, and they're legislated out just because one or two people on the CRB don't want anything from overseas here.

As for a $3k junkyard engine being competitive to something built to the limit of the rules? no. my point was something that makes a helluvalot more power out of the box than what the current options are, and it will do it in stock-ish trim that will be much more reliable than something that puts out the same power in NA trim.
Several local DE guys running these engines have 100k+ miles on them with original turbos and internals and have been putting down 300whp for years. Of course someone else could come along and throw a bucket of coin at it and make a whole lot more power on a 10hr engine, but there's nothing any of us can do about that.

The good thing about STU and turbo engines is you're limited through the inlet restrictor, which physics will dictate just how much air can flow through that hole and thus maximum power output.

I'm always going to get out-moneyed no matter where I go and what class I'm in.. At this point I'm just trying to help raise the potential of the bottom end of the playing field.

JoshS
07-02-2011, 12:18 AM
I'm always going to get out-moneyed no matter where I go and what class I'm in.. At this point I'm just trying to help raise the potential of the bottom end of the playing field.

I think that's very well said. But raising the potential at the bottom end means also means raising the potential at the top end, and that's where things get hung up. My guess is that the PTB didn't want to muck with the top.

I understand the argument that maybe restrictors make it so that the gain at the top isn't as big as the gain at the bottom, that's also Christian's point about making it so that there are diminishing returns for spending more money. But there's still likely a change at the top and it appears that the PTB felt that they would have a hard time quantifying it, so it's not worth the risk.

lateapex911
07-02-2011, 02:29 AM
I can't argue with that either..

... And that's why NASA's Performance Touring setup is so popular. unfortuantely the unscrupulous are screwing that up too with 'cheater ECUs' and whatnot... but simply limiting power to weight ratios and letting people do what they want to get there is a damn good idea to me..

How popular is it, really? I really don't know.

But I do think it's a VERY 3 dimensional ruleset, and that cubes the difficulty in finding the "Right" combination. By that I mean, will THIS combination make the most competitive package, or this. Or this? Testing testing testing.

Then there's the "make the power below the curve" challenge. More testing, experimentation and parts swapping.

I keep hearing people say,
"It's hp limited, you make more and up a class you go. They have dynos at the track and you roll off and right on the rollers".

SOUNDS like they have it all figured out.
But...... Bob loves PTE, and wants to win. So he hits the top number he can. Now it's time to make that power from 300 rpm all the way to 7500. He doesn't care if it costs money, or if it blows up after three races.
Then he chases his chassis 'point combos' to find the velocity made good winning combo.
At the end, he's faaaaast. And wins. And he spent $$$$$. And everyone else is sad.

Really, that ruleset can be VERY expensive to fully exploit.

Then there's the fact that it's easier than stealing broccoli from a baby to game the whole dyno thing.

What you want is to be able to run a mildly tuned easy to build long lasting motor. You can. BUT, if you want that to be a good racing engine, you need everyone else to agree to the same build. What you really need is somebody to build them, seal them and sell them reasonably to you and all your classmates..

Honda has an ad where they brag about how not one single Honda Indy engine has ever failed. "Because we build it with heart" is their conclusion. Hahahha...no, it's because they build it with a limit. It's powerful but low stressed spec engine. Of course it's not going to blow.

Matt93SE
07-02-2011, 11:07 AM
The PTB also puts GPSs in cars at random, and STO is doing the same thing at some races.
As well, I kinda like the 'pick your points' strategy- you can focus on power, handling, weight, mechanical grip, or aero.. or a combination of any of the above. All of them make the car faster so it's a matter of figuring out what you want to do and going with it. Of course anyone can throw cubic yards of cash at any car in any class and make something really fast- there's nothing anyone can do about that.
But until then, why not give us po' folk a fighting chance? :)

Mrsideways
07-06-2011, 10:24 AM
The PTB also puts GPSs in cars at random, and STO is doing the same thing at some races.
As well, I kinda like the 'pick your points' strategy- you can focus on power, handling, weight, mechanical grip, or aero.. or a combination of any of the above. All of them make the car faster so it's a matter of figuring out what you want to do and going with it. Of course anyone can throw cubic yards of cash at any car in any class and make something really fast- there's nothing anyone can do about that.
But until then, why not give us po' folk a fighting chance? :)

The GPS doesn't work for 2 reasons. ONE not everyone has the oppertunity to calibrate to it. TWO it's still got some bugs to sort out, I was at the NASA event this past weekend at sebring and The TT director put the GPS on several different cars. All registered the cars at signifcantly more horsepower then they actually made (like 100 or more). It also said we had a 5 foot rise in the backstraight (at sebring). The Dyno doesn't work either because there are plenty of ways to "cheat" a dyno. One being to let the car sit there and heat soak like crazy while you wait to roll across the dyno in tech. My old Mini which dyno'd 216whp at normal opperating temp but after coming off track and sitting running for 20mins with the hood down only dyno'd 184whp. Had I know this I'd have showed up with the thing tuned to 250whp cause that's what it did on the first calibration pull at NASA nationals and I was left trying to figure out how to get 34hp out it to pass the dyno. We pulled the rev limiter down 1000rpm on it.
My car runs in PTA because of all the nick nack points it takes for a Splitter/air dam , Tiny SCCA legal wing, remote reservior shocks etc etc. It's a hopeless car in PTA but after seeing that Both honda and BFG pay for REGIONAL NASA races the car is taking a turn and being built as a NASA PT car first and STU car second. I'm thinking about Bolting a Turbo on and removing it for SCCA races. With Two races in a 2 day weekend and both being relatively short the car actually has a chance of Breaking even in the money department which is the goal.

Matt93SE
07-06-2011, 11:22 AM
It doesn't matter what rule people make or what device you use to try to keep people within those rules, there will ALWAYS be someone that tries to cheat.

I'm not sure how you need to "calibrate" a GPS. I use them all the time in survey work and there's no calibration needed. It's a pretty simple device that spits out a location and a time. you then chart time elapsed, distance traveled, enter the car's weight, and you can calculate a horsepower number based on those three numbers. throw in transmission ratios if you want as well. If they're 100hp off, then it's because the operators aren't doing something right. Physics doesn't lie.

If you're getting a rise of 5' across the straight at sebring, then there's something else in the GPS unit- accelerometers or something as well.

As for the dyno fooling, that's a matter of policing and proper test methods. you can make any dyno read what you want it to read with tricks like heat soak and multiple computer programs and everything else. proper impound/testing would solve that.

But then again, for every rule you make, there's some unscrupulous bastage out there that tries to circumvent it. I see the same in SCCA too.

Chip42
07-06-2011, 05:33 PM
cheating a dyno test is as simple as reading non-drive wheelspeed as an indicator for advance or a fuel table. if the non drive wheels are sitting still on the dyno then the ECU never leaves low power mode. hard to catch without having a tuner there.

Matt93SE
07-06-2011, 10:06 PM
lots of ways to cheat in IT too.... For every rule that says "you can't ______" there's been someone who has or is now...

Mrsideways
07-07-2011, 10:35 AM
cheating a dyno test is as simple as reading non-drive wheelspeed as an indicator for advance or a fuel table. if the non drive wheels are sitting still on the dyno then the ECU never leaves low power mode. hard to catch without having a tuner there.

I'm pretty sure the car I ran aginst at NASA Nationals 2 years ago had that set up in his ECU. Car was smoking fast on track but laid down a pretty unimpressive dyno number.