Legality of crank swaps

[Z3_GoCar]

So, here's a question that's not been covered. Rods and Crankshafts are legal for exchange. So, what if I were to swap my 84mm crank for a 75mm crank. Could I then claim it's a 2.5 and use the weight of a 2.5 liter motor?

[Greg Amy]

If all the rest of the parts of the engine are the same as the 2.5 (e.g., head, intake manifold, throttle body) then yes. But keep in mind IIDSYCTYC applies in ST too... -GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is a great question...

[Greg Amy]

It is a good question.

I guess the easiest way to explain my opinion would be that if you swapped in the shorter crank, and what you ended up with was exactly the same thing as what you'd have in the car if you swapped in a 2.5L engine complete, and all you're doing is looking for a cheaper way to do it, then I'd say it's compliant. But if doing so would give you a performance advantage over a similarly-prepped 2.5L engine (e.g., the 2.8L engine has a better head/manifold/t-body), then you're likely contrary to the regs.

Just to be clear, above you said "rods and crankshaft" are free. Did you mean "rods and pistons"? Crank can be an alternate part but must be identical dimensions. Honestly, I'd like to clarify the intent of that rule, as I think it's a World Challenge holdover...but it's safest to keep IIDSYCTYC in mind.

GA

[Chip42]

This is a great question...

I agree, and not because I don't think it's clear form the standpoint of the intent of the class (and tGA sumarized that well).

it's a great question because, going back to the first principle of the displacement to weight theory, why does it matter? if the ruesultant motor has 2500cc, then according to the concept, it should be wighted and run accordingly.

I support the "cost caontainment" or enforcement ability of running stock parts from the USDM etc... but the ruleset is, effectively, an excersize in identifying the best stock bottom end and head/intake/TB combination as offered in a car for sale in the US. displacement/weight only works if the other variables are removed. it can look close to right, but we all know better.

under the general pretenses of the class, I think that parts bin motors should be ok. I think that non USDM motors should be OK. and am apparently at odds with the CRB and many others.

I agree that it's easier and cheaper to have stock long blocks with the allowed modifications, as well as other implications of marketing and rule making import, but it simply doesn't add up from the engineering view.

[Z3_GoCar]

So, this is the applicable section:


2. The crankshaft shall be a stock OEM part or

an aftermarket part

as long as it is of identical dimensions and material as the OEM
part for the specific engine. The crankshaft may be


balanced.

The


maximum weight reduction allowance for balancing of the

crankshaft is 0.5 lbs. The


maximum weight reduction allowance

for the balancing of the reciprocating assembly is 15 grams.
Alternate connecting rods are permitted


, but must be ferrous
unless OEM supplied.

Part of the exercise is to get a better oe intake manifold, part is to keep the weight down. Dimensionally, my 84mm crank is the same as the 75mm crank except for the stoke. My rods are shorter than the 75mm crank, so I could also swap those out for a matching set. Also, head's the same casting.

Oh, one more twist. Does the intake manifold match the head or the crank? See I could use a newer generation 75mm crankshaft, but my head matches the older generation intake manifold.

[Greg Amy]

Does the intake manifold match the head or the crank? See I could use a newer generation 75mm crankshaft, but my head matches the older generation intake manifold.
James, you can't build a Frankenstein engine; you can only mimic the specs of an existing engine. If everything matches the specs of the BMW 2.5L engine (with STU allowances) then you're good. Otherwise, you're not. - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

James, you can't build a Frankenstein engine; you can only mimic the specs of an existing engine. If everything matches the specs of the BMW 2.5L engine (with STU allowances) then you're good. Otherwise, you're not. - GA

What you don't know Greg is that even oe and untouched it's a Frankenstein :D

BMW believes in evolutionary design changes, so multiple generations share common parts.

[Matt93SE]

Here's my take on it...

2. The crankshaft shall be a stock OEM part or
an aftermarket part
as long as it is of identical dimensions and material as the OEM
part for the specific engine.

In other words, you can not take a 2.5L crank and put it in a 3L block & head UNLESS BMW made a 2.5L engine using that specific combination of parts.


I'm glad this thread came up, since the non-USDM request has been denied, I'm trying to find another decent engine to put in the car. The only other "small" RWD engine Nissan has is the VQ25 from the Infiniti G25. 2.5L V6.
It's a baby-brother of the VQ35 in the G35 and 350Z.
The problem is Nissan only sells it as a long block (minus manifolds and lots of sensors), and it's around $8k. I haven't seen any on the used market yet for a junkyard donor.

Some of the Maxima guys have been Frankensteining these VQ engines for years using a 3.5L block and a 3.0L crank to come up with a short-stroke 2.3L engine that revs to 8,000,000,000rpm before throwing rods.

IF we can parts-bin an engine together using OEM parts, I could conceivably build a 'decent' engine doing that...

But the way I read the rules, that's not allowed.

[Greg Amy]

What you don't know Greg is that even oe and untouched it's a Frankenstein :D
;) You know those engines better than I. If you can justify it to a protesting competitor, scrutineer, and subsequent appeals court, then that's all you need...but if someone says "hey, that's an intake from a 2.8 and a t-body from a 3.2, and a head from a 2.8 and a block from a 2.5, and that combo never came from any factory-delivered BMW" well...I'll buy the beer to watch the tech shed fun... :happy204:

GA

[Greg Amy]

IF we can parts-bin an engine together using OEM parts, I could conceivably build a 'decent' engine doing that...But the way I read the rules, that's not allowed.
Nope. We've discussed the idea of allowing Frankensteins, and putting in some very-general class restrictions like t-body size, displacement, cam lifts etc and let people go to town. But right now I don't think it's something we're willing to tackle philosophically, and I personally don't think it's something the CRB would be will to entertain either. Let's let the dust settle for a while and see what shakes out, then we can discuss other options. - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

;) You know those engines better than I. If you can justify it to a protesting competitor, scrutineer, and subsequent appeals court, then that's all you need...but if someone says "hey, that's an intake from a 2.8 and a t-body from a 3.2, and a head from a 2.8 and a block from a 2.5, and that combo never came from any factory-delivered BMW" well...I'll buy the beer to watch the tech shed fun... :happy204:

GA

Well, here's proof they're Frankenstein's from the factory. I looked up the crankshaft part number, and here's the cars that share the same part number for this crankshaft:
Part 11211705848 (CRANKSHAFT W. BEARING SHELLS) was found on the following vehicles:


E34: Details on E34 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11211705848&showus=1&showeur=&series=E34)
E34 525i Sedan
E34 525i Touring

E36: Details on E36 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11211705848&showus=1&showeur=&series=E36)
E36 323i Convertible
E36 323i Coupe
E36 325i Sedan
E36 325i Convertible
E36 325is Coupe

E39: Details on E39 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11211705848&showus=1&showeur=&series=E39)
E39 525i Touring
E39 525i Sedan

E46: Details on E46 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11211705848&showus=1&showeur=&series=E46)
E46 323Ci Convertible
E46 323Ci Coupe
E46 323i Touring
E46 323i Sedan
E46 325Ci Coupe
E46 325Ci Convertible
E46 325i Touring
E46 325i Sedan
E46 325xi Touring
E46 325xi Sedan

E60: Details on E60 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11211705848&showus=1&showeur=&series=E60)
E60 525i Sedan

E83: Details on E83 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11211705848&showus=1&showeur=&series=E83)
E83 X3 2.5i SUV

E85: Details on E85 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11211705848&showus=1&showeur=&series=E85)
E85 Z4 2.5i Roadster
Z3: Details on Z3 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11211705848&showus=1&showeur=&series=Z3)
Z3 Z3 2.5 Roadster
Z3 Z3 2.5i Roadster

[Matt93SE]

Let's let the dust settle for a while and see what shakes out, then we can discuss other options. - GA

Can I just keep kicking the JDM hornet's nest and see if they give in? that's the cheapest option to make 200whp in a <3L Nissan. :shrug:

[JoshS]

Well, here's proof they're Frankenstein's from the factory. I looked up the crankshaft part number, and here's the cars that share the same part number for this crankshaft:

James, you can't do it, period. These aren't frankenstein motors. A frankenstein motor is a motor that's been built from combinations of parts that were never available together.

All of the engines that the 2.5L crank was in were 2.5L engines (go figure). So you can't put one in 2.8L block. What you *can* do is to use any BMW 2.5L engine you want to (and, you can piece one together using parts from your 2.8, but the result has to be identical to something that came stock in some US BMW).

So the question to ask is, which 2.5L do you want to build? I'd recommend an M54, but it would certainly be easier to build an M50 given what you've got in the car now, since you can keep your current head and intake manifold.

[Z3_GoCar]

Josh,

I'd prefer to just pick up a M50tu, and install a few performance parts I still have left from making my 2.8 IT legal. But, I'm having a hard time finding a M50 for a decent price, and I've got two salvage yards local.

[Mrsideways]

I've been trying to get this approved to put a Acura TSX rotating assembly in an S2000 block. So far it's a no go. The engine swap to the TSX motor or better yet a RDX motor is a lot of work and a lot of $$$$ custom made parts.

[Chip42]

I've been trying to get this approved to put a Acura TSX rotating assembly in an S2000 block. So far it's a no go. The engine swap to the TSX motor or better yet a RDX motor is a lot of work and a lot of $$$$ custom made parts.

Last I checked, you are on the side of all USDM, why would you suggest that frankensteins be allowed and be against JDM swaps???

UNRELATED to Ian's post: second COA ruling in 6/11 Fastrack supports my (many) previous statements about ST being too confusing for the old guard / disinterested in tech. the IT in ST allowance causes too much confusion. I would agree that it should not, but people understand what they want to (see history of religious wars). the fact that the protested items were not at least documented in as raced condition is shameful. CoT should have points on his license.

[Greg Amy]

...second COA ruling in 6/11 Fastrack supports my (many) previous statements about ST being too confusing for the old guard / disinterested in tech.
Agree; I found it quite interesting (I'd not heard of it prior to Fastrack publication and have no other knowledge of it).

However, my take on what little info is offered is that the guy brought a World Challenge car to a National event assuming it was automatically approved for STU competition (as it was in 2010). We know, though, that all WC cars must be individual requested, weighted, and approved for use in STU. So what I think happened is that when he got protested, he took a different tack and said, "OK, so let's call it an ITR car". The SOMs said OK, he's good. But the protester realized (later, I guess) that the car was ineligible for ITR, so he appealed.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the car was ineligible for ITR. However, they noted the car had a 3L engine, which is STU-eligible. They overturned the SOMs and said (correctly) that the car was eligible for the open STU rules. In the end, depending on level of mods the car *may* actually be non-compliant to the STU rules but it was never inspected to that end; since they did not have the info needed to determine that, and the car on its face was eligible, the Court of Appeals overturned the Stewards and the protestee's finishing position stands.

IMO, based on what info it had, they ruled correctly. I would not be surprised to see another equipment protest in the near future...or maybe the protestee will send us VTS and request a specific WC allowance.

But yes, Chip, I agree that all these various allowances can be confusing. However, in this example I'd not blame the IT allowance; I think the ITR allowance was trying to be used as a loophole... - GA

[JoshS]

We're all speculating here, but ... I doubt the car was an ex-WC car, since it apparently didn't have driveshaft straps.

And the fact that an '04 IS300 isn't listed in ITR is correct, but it's really an oversight, the years should have been extended to include the '03-'05 (and really should disallow the '01, since it never came with a manual transmission.)

In other words, what the owner should have tried is, "Okay, let's call it an '02, not an '04, and it's prepped to the ITR rules." That might have worked.

[Mrsideways]

Last I checked, you are on the side of all USDM, why would you suggest that frankensteins be allowed and be against JDM swaps???

UNRELATED to Ian's post: second COA ruling in 6/11 Fastrack supports my (many) previous statements about ST being too confusing for the old guard / disinterested in tech. the IT in ST allowance causes too much confusion. I would agree that it should not, but people understand what they want to (see history of religious wars). the fact that the protested items were not at least documented in as raced condition is shameful. CoT should have points on his license.

Because where does it stop in terms of JDM, GDM, Forumla one Motors etc etc. Frankenstiens are still policeable, whats your compression, whats your bore and stroke... Done. Or just allow any crank with that stroke, piston speeds are so mad your not going to be able to turn it up more with a stronger crank so it won't matter. I think I'd be ok with JDM swaps on a Case by Case basis. But the first thing that came to mind was an RB26 into a 240sx or a 3rotor in a Miata, Or the EURO E36 M3 3.0L in some sort of tiny light BMW. Or and this would be neat but a focus RS in a Fiesta. What's to stop one of these things from being undercover till the day before the runoffs and showing up as a "you forgot about this idea" 400whp monster.

[Greg Amy]

In other words, what the owner should have tried is, "Okay, let's call it an '02, not an '04, and it's prepped to the ITR rules." That might have worked.
Makes sense, esp. given no VIN requirements. Then again, by the time he left the track, he thought he was "approved" as an ITR, so maybe that's what they did?

So I wonder what REALLY happened...? If anyone knows these guys, I'd like to hear the real story...and get the car properly classified.

Ian, as noted before, we've debated Frankensteins and/or setting general prep/performance technical equipment limits as you describe above. I just don't think the Club has the stomach for that right now. and I'd suggest that if you're "for" that kinda ideal, then JDM engines are no big panacea, it's all same idea.

GA

[Mrsideways]

Makes sense, esp. given no VIN requirements. Then again, by the time he left the track, he thought he was "approved" as an ITR, so maybe that's what they did?

So I wonder what REALLY happened...? If anyone knows these guys, I'd like to hear the real story...and get the car properly classified.

Ian, as noted before, we've debated Frankensteins and/or setting general prep/performance technical equipment limits as you describe above. I just don't think the Club has the stomach for that right now. and I'd suggest that if you're "for" that kinda ideal, then JDM engines are no big panacea, it's all same idea.

GA

Greg I know it's been sidelined so it's not something I'm expecting. But JDM does nothing for my car as Honda makes no other engine/tranny combo to go in the car with ease so JDM helps me none. I know it's a selfish thought but it is what it is.
The Frankenstein motor is not only somewhat common in the S2000 world it's also FAR cheaper then any other option for making hp as I see the car being down about 70hp from where it needs to be in STU and talking to many in the S2000 community I'm not only wasting money building it the most I'll gain in the rule set is 10... MAYBE 15hp for the exact same amount of money I'd have in doing the K24 crankshaft into the thing and make 40-50 + a bunch of torque.
The problem with an engine swap are many (on top of the cost of building one of those engines).
Doing the TSX engine requires getting an adapter plate made between engine and tranny, Custom Flywheel and clutch setup, Custom engine mounts, Custom exhaust manifold. And then using the stock intake (which I'm not entirely convinced will actually bolt up to the K series Head).
Doing the RDX engine (the way I would go) gets a Turbo motor in the car however it's a smaller turbo then the SR20 guys get in the 240sx and no one has really messed with the RDX so can it even make the power? Also bring gearing into the question in which case I'd probably go with a 5sp Tremec and a custom bellhousing, custom driveshaft, again custom clutch etc etc etc. It's Big Bucks. Custom Bellhousing quote alone was near $2000.

So why am I interesed in the Frankenstein Motor... Cause for the same price as a bellhousing I can have all the parts here to build a motor in a couple of weekends and drop it in the car and be racing vs spending 6 or more months with the car down trying to fab up custom stuff.
Bolt in = :023:

[Greg Amy]

But JDM does nothing for my car as Honda makes no other engine/tranny combo to go in the car with ease so JDM helps me none...[with a Frankenstein] for the same price as a bellhousing I can...build a motor in a couple of weekends and drop it in the car and be racing vs spending 6 or more months with the car down trying to fab up custom stuff.
Allow me some leeway without taking offense - certainly none intended - but what you describe above illustrates EXACTLY why we do not always put things up for democratic votes, and why we need leadership able to see the 30,000-foot view to make these decisions.

I don't know if you realize it (though I think you may), but here's what I just read:

- I don't want you to have access to cheaper and potentially more powerful JDM engines because it does not benefit me, and
- I want myself to have access Frankenstein engines because it benefits me by making engine choice cheaper for more power.

Yes at the same exact time, people above you just said:

- I want us to have access to JDM engines because it benefits me by making engine choice cheaper for more power.

...and you damned them for, effectively, being so selfish!

See the dichotomy?

Making the right choices involves compromise for all. But if we stick to changes that only benefit ourselves yet reject those that benefit others, then nobody gets anything. Yet if you support their JDM engines while asking them to support your Frankenstein engines, then it's quite possible all will benefit.

These are the kind of leadership choices we have to make. If I were king, we'd have both. But because of resistance as you yourself describe above, I can pretty much predict we'll get neither.

It can't just be "all about me", dude.

GA

[Gary L]

Makes sense, esp. given no VIN requirements. Then again, by the time he left the track, he thought he was "approved" as an ITR, so maybe that's what they did?

So I wonder what REALLY happened...? If anyone knows these guys, I'd like to hear the real story...and get the car properly classified.

If this is the same Ron Pawley IS300 mentioned in another thread...

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29325 (post #13)

...the car apparently has a turbocharger. That would make putting it in ITR a little silly, eh? If there is a turbo, that might explain the mention of a missing restrictor plate in the protest.

[Matt93SE]

Makes sense, esp. given no VIN requirements. Then again, by the time he left the track, he thought he was "approved" as an ITR, so maybe that's what they did?

So I wonder what REALLY happened...? If anyone knows these guys, I'd like to hear the real story...and get the car properly classified.


I assume you're talking about Ron Pawley in his IS300 at the TMS race in May or so?

there's a few things I heard/saw with that race..
1. That car is an ex-Grand Am car from what I can gather. I never saw results from him in World Challenge, but I see results from an IS300 in Grand Am.
2. Being a turbo, that means it has a 2JZ from a Supra in it, assuming it was swapped early.
3. Grand Am supposedly lists different restrictor sizes for each track, and I heard something about Grand Am cars being allowed to run in WC-TC, and since they're 'eligible for WC-TC', then it was assumed it would be allowed in STU as-is.
4. The car was protested as soon as it rolled off the track- I'm not privy to exactly what the protest was but basically "it's too fast. check the restrictor. oh and he's running Hoosiers on a World Challenge car. if he doesn't have a restrictor in it, then he's running world challenge rules and he has to run R888s not Hoosiers."
5. less than 1hr after the Sat race, he packed up his car and left the track. He was leaving the track while I was still rotating tires and checking the car after the race.
6. I STILL don't have times on mylaps.com for that race. :mad:

That tells me he either: 1) only planned to enter the Sat race (at a dbl nat? don't think so.) or 2) knew the car wasn't legal in some way shape or form and got caught and was sent packing.

I'll bug the Stewards about it next time I talk to them. Most of the stewards in the area have been around a while and are quote possibly confused with the STU rules and crossovers.

At the June race at TWS, I asked Larry Svaton about the issue and was given the grand am doesn't require restrictors mumbo jumbo... but WTF does grand am have to do with STU or WC-touring?

[Mrsideways]

Allow me some leeway without taking offense - certainly none intended - but what you describe above illustrates EXACTLY why we do not always put things up for democratic votes, and why we need leadership able to see the 30,000-foot view to make these decisions.

I don't know if you realize it (though I think you may), but here's what I just read:

- I don't want you to have access to cheaper and potentially more powerful JDM engines because it does not benefit me, and
- I want myself to have access Frankenstein engines because it benefits me by making engine choice cheaper for more power.

Yes at the same exact time, people above you just said:

- I want us to have access to JDM engines because it benefits me by making engine choice cheaper for more power.

...and you damned them for, effectively, being so selfish!

See the dichotomy?

Making the right choices involves compromise for all. But if we stick to changes that only benefit ourselves yet reject those that benefit others, then nobody gets anything. Yet if you support their JDM engines while asking them to support your Frankenstein engines, then it's quite possible all will benefit.

These are the kind of leadership choices we have to make. If I were king, we'd have both. But because of resistance as you yourself describe above, I can pretty much predict we'll get neither.

It can't just be "all about me", dude.

GA

Greg.... 2 things I'm against Wide Open non-usdm engines because it makes to many options that lots don't think about. I'm afraid of unrestricted engine swaps from throughout the world cause someone might keep it a secrete and show up at the runoffs with a ringer. But I'm ok with it on a CASE by CASE basis just like the frankenstien motors. 2nd I also was under the impression that the SR20 was an approved swap for the Nissan's and that this wouldn't effect that because it has already been approved.

[Greg Amy]

Greg.... 2 things I'm against Wide Open non-usdm engines because it makes to many options that lots don't think about.
...and others are against Frankenstein engines because it makes too many options that many don't think about.


But I'm ok with it on a CASE by CASE basis just like the frankenstien motors....and we actually proposed case by case allowance of JDM engines with supporting documentation so it can be classified properly.

See how that all works...?


I also was under the impression that the SR20 was an approved swap for the Nissan's and that this wouldn't effect that because it has already been approved.The US-spec SR20DE is approved to be fitted into any Nissan chassis. However, that engine - the one I ran in my ITA NX2000 - only came with 140 ponies stock for the USA; our market never got the 189hp variable valve lift (VVL, kinda like VTEC) SR20VE, nor did the US market get the turbocharged version SR20DET. Ergo, without allowances to run non-USDM-spec engines, neither of those engines is compliant to be transplanted into an STU car; competitors are stuck with the 140hp baseline engine only.

GA

[Mrsideways]

...and others are against Frankenstein engines because it makes too many options that many don't think about.

...and we actually proposed case by case allowance of JDM engines with supporting documentation so it can be classified properly.

See how that all works...?

The US-spec SR20DE is approved to be fitted into any Nissan chassis. However, that engine - the one I ran in my ITA NX2000 - only came with 140 ponies stock for the USA; our market never got the 189hp variable valve lift (VVL, kinda like VTEC) SR20VE, nor did the US market get the turbocharged version SR20DET. Ergo, without allowances to run non-USDM-spec engines, neither of those engines is compliant to be transplanted into an STU car; competitors are stuck with the 140hp baseline engine only.

GA

Greg, I don't understand why your blasting me for an opinion. When you right in for rule changes or opinions your not thinking of others. After all they are your competition right? It's like Voting for the other guy in an election. When you write in you think of one person YOU. No one writes in asking for weight off the cars of their competition right? Great the Nissan guys get 140hp. But it sure appears by the Fastrac that I'm the only letter. I can think of a Nissan V6 that could be made to fit with less trouble then I'm gonna have graphting in an Acura RDX engine.
Also my responce to the Non-USDM engines was as a responce to not being allowed to build the stroker motor which was shot down BEFORE I wrote in. And My frankenmotor is ALL USDM parts which IMO is easier to police then Non-USDM motors. However I've come to the exceptance that it won't happen.
If were talking cheap and easy.... allow bolt on Turbo/Superchargers with restrictors for cars that can't make the hp and call it a day. Super Easy to Police then.

[Greg Amy]

Ian, I don't intend to "blast" you, I'm simply pointing out your inconsistencies. And I totally disagree with your assertion that "everyone" writes in thinking only of themselves. Requests should be considered as to how they affect the category/class as a whole, not whether they help or hurt one particular car/driver.

On edit: While the response was light, letters regarding allowing non-USDM engines was overwhelmingly in favor. The STAC recommended allowing non-USDM engines to the CRB. The CRB rejected the recommendation. So, if it were actually put to a "democratic" vote, it would have passed...

GA

[Mrsideways]

Ian, I don't intend to "blast" you, I'm simply pointing out your inconsistencies. And I totally disagree with your assertion that "everyone" writes in thinking only of themselves.

Requests should be considered as to how they affect the category/class as a whole, not whether they help or hurt one particular car/driver.

GA

I somewhat disagree. I think it's the CRB's job to take the requests and apply the idea to how they effect the overall class and keep someone from getting an unfair advantage.

[Chip42]

I assume you're talking about Ron Pawley in his IS300 at the TMS race in May or so?

there's a few things I heard/saw with that race..
1. That car is an ex-Grand Am car from what I can gather. I never saw results from him in World Challenge, but I see results from an IS300 in Grand Am.
2. Being a turbo, that means it has a 2JZ from a Supra in it, assuming it was swapped early.
3. Grand Am supposedly lists different restrictor sizes for each track, and I heard something about Grand Am cars being allowed to run in WC-TC, and since they're 'eligible for WC-TC', then it was assumed it would be allowed in STU as-is.


I'm not 100% up on grandam, and they could have changed their rules since, but I can't think of a time when motor swaps were allowed there. the info about GA/WC crossover is nice, but like you said, irrelevent.

to us it's simple: was a VTS submitted to the STAC, approved and on the chart? no? then it's a standard STU car with turbo, weight determined by inlet diameter or inlet restrictor.
to tech, it's a nightmare.

[Greg Amy]

to tech, it's a nightmare.
This is becoming more and more obvious. We're getting legitimate questions from experienced scrutineers who are confused by the category. I'm hoping that our proposed philosophy will sufficiently address that.

GA

[JS154]

I assume you're talking about Ron Pawley in his IS300 at the TMS race in May or so?

there's a few things I heard/saw with that race..
1. That car is an ex-Grand Am car from what I can gather. I never saw results from him in World Challenge, but I see results from an IS300 in Grand Am.
2. Being a turbo, that means it has a 2JZ from a Supra in it, assuming it was swapped early.
3. Grand Am supposedly lists different restrictor sizes for each track, and I heard something about Grand Am cars being allowed to run in WC-TC, and since they're 'eligible for WC-TC', then it was assumed it would be allowed in STU as-is.
4. The car was protested as soon as it rolled off the track- I'm not privy to exactly what the protest was but basically "it's too fast. check the restrictor. oh and he's running Hoosiers on a World Challenge car. if he doesn't have a restrictor in it, then he's running world challenge rules and he has to run R888s not Hoosiers."
5. less than 1hr after the Sat race, he packed up his car and left the track. He was leaving the track while I was still rotating tires and checking the car after the race.
6. I STILL don't have times on mylaps.com for that race. :mad:

That tells me he either: 1) only planned to enter the Sat race (at a dbl nat? don't think so.) or 2) knew the car wasn't legal in some way shape or form and got caught and was sent packing.

I'll bug the Stewards about it next time I talk to them. Most of the stewards in the area have been around a while and are quote possibly confused with the STU rules and crossovers.

At the June race at TWS, I asked Larry Svaton about the issue and was given the grand am doesn't require restrictors mumbo jumbo... but WTF does grand am have to do with STU or WC-touring?

The car in question is an actual ex-World Challenge car, Tim Pappas' specifically. info in this thread> http://my.is/forums/f47/my-interview-andrew-wojteczko-auto-analyser-racing-296978/

The VTS sheet does not list a turbo. http://www.world-challenge.com/includes/tng/pub/tNG_download.php?id=fb5fe1e751255d3f608992ec529bea b8

It does not show up on Table B in the September rules on the SCCA website as of this writing.

[Matt93SE]

JS154, thanks for the update and clarification. I was 10000% sure that thing had a turbo from the sound of it flying by me on the straight.

[dhrmx5]

The M3 3.0 bmw in a light weight chassis would still have to weigh 3300 lbs. The 3 rotor isn't allowed in STU.

There are already 400hp capable cars in STU. They are called Evos and GXPs.

[JS154]

The M3 3.0 bmw in a light weight chassis would still have to weigh 3300 lbs. The 3 rotor isn't allowed in STU.



...and has to use stock cams. That will never be a competitive engine in STU with that restriction/requirement.

[Greg Amy]

...and has to use stock cams.
How do you figure? There is no build restriction placed on any 3.0L BMW engine in STU. The E36 M3 3.2L engine has to run stock cam lift (not stock cams) this year because the class displacement limit is currently 3L; however, that engine will be allowed to run uncorked next year (@3520# pounds) when we raise the displacement limit to 3.2 liters for 2012...

I believe our plan is to leave that current engine build restriction in Table A for 2012 to accommodate a Spec E36 classing request, so you can build it either way, whichever you prefer. - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Then what about the S-54 3.2l motor that's currently classed in STO?
Will it be legal for STU at that point? You let the S-52 with it's crappy stock intake manifold in and by opening it up to all 3.2l motors you'll get the S-54 with it's individual throttle body intake manifold and ability to rev to 9k rpm.

[Greg Amy]

Then what about the S-54 3.2l motor that's currently classed in STO? Will it be legal for STU at that point?
All 3.2L engines will be allowed in STU in 2012. This car will then be dual-classed in STU and STO, different prep levels, different weights.


You let the S-52 with it's crappy stock intake manifold in and by opening it up to all 3.2l motors you'll get the S-54 with it's individual throttle body intake manifold and ability to rev to 9k rpm.Warts and all. We can't promise everyone will be competitive, and the class gives you flexibility to find your preferred combo.

If this engine over-performs to our class targets, it will either get excluded from STU (see: ITR and S2000 engines in STL) or it will get weight. - GA

On edit: if you think the engine will over-perform relative to all other choices, then please do send in a request to exclude the engine, with appropriate supporting information. That info should include supporting data on what the output capability of the engine can be within the STU regs (or reasonably close) and why you believe that's more than the existing cars in the class.

[JS154]

Then what about the S-54 3.2l motor that's currently classed in STO?
Will it be legal for STU at that point? You let the S-52 with it's crappy stock intake manifold in and by opening it up to all 3.2l motors you'll get the S-54 with it's individual throttle body intake manifold and ability to rev to 9k rpm.

Software tuining only on the S54 is shown below. 100 octane race gas is well-settled to allow 8more hp on the S54 engine as well. And that's just a tune and gas. No headers, compression or cam bumps, nothing.

The S54 engine has no business being in STU.

http://cdn.nexternal.com/bimmerworl/images/Software_S542.jpg

[JS154]

How do you figure? There is no build restriction placed on any 3.0L BMW engine in STU. The E36 M3 3.2L engine has to run stock cam lift (not stock cams) this year because the class displacement limit is currently 3L; however, that engine will be allowed to run uncorked next year (@3520# pounds) when we raise the displacement limit to 3.2 liters for 2012...

I believe our plan is to leave that current engine build restriction in Table A for 2012 to accommodate a Spec E36 classing request, so you can build it either way, whichever you prefer. - GA

Correct on wording regarding stock camshaft LIFT.


BMW E36 M3 (95-99) max displ 3200 min weight 3200
Engines are permitted 0.040 overbore, 0.5
point increase in compression.
Engines must use the OEM camshaft lift.

'95 was the 3.0L
'96-99 was the 3.2l


With that table, is there anything stopping someone from dropping a 3.2L S54 into an E36 M3 right now, overboring and bumping compression 0.5?

The only limit is on max displacement it seems, for the E36M3, which is a chassis. Nothing stopping anyone from putting a built S50 (3.0L USDM engine) into an E30 bmw and going nutzo with cams and upping compression and such...that will be 290 at the wheels easy in that case.

If this isn't class creeep I don't know what is. If that's the intent, so be it, but it would be wise then to also do something along the lines like make STL a National class and bump the displacment limit to under 2500cc, to give all the current STU cars. Or perhaps just leave the class alone for a little while. Rules stability is important, lack of rules stability was a huge problem for BMW CR for a number of years and the result was significantly declining participation from 2002-2007.

Increasing the class displacement limit to 3.2L is solving what problem that presently exists? That opens the door to the E46 M3 with the S54 engine and the Acura NSX with the C32B engine, just off the top of my head.

[JS154]

I believe our plan is to leave that current engine build restriction in Table A for 2012 to accommodate a Spec E36 classing request, so you can build it either way, whichever you prefer. - GA

SpecE36 (BMW CR) already fits in STU, stock 2.5-2.8L engines, stock brakes and transmissions at just under 2700# IIRC. A great car for ITR, and a field filler for STU even at it's present weight. with the 1.1 ratio it will become a backmarker in STU.

Well prepped and well driven they turn high 2:13's low 2:14's at the Glen, which is 5-6 seconds/lap off this years STU leaders.

[Greg Amy]

The S54 engine has no business being in STU.
300 whp is NOTHING in STU. With a weight of ~3500# a 3.2L engine can put out somewhere around 385 crank and still be within the class goals (a guesstimate; I don't have the exact numbers).

You guys need to realize that STU ain't no "let's just cobble something together and go racing" kind of class. STU is a "let's compete in World Challenge GTS-caliber cars". If you're not happy competing against a RealTime Racing-quality Acura TSX, or a Stasis-quality Audi A4 turbo AWD, or a BimmerWorld-quality BMW E46 M3, then you are going to be very frustrated and very unhappy in STU.

I'm not trying to be an ass. We most assuredly welcome your participation in STU, but you need to "level-set" your expectations with that mindset.

GA

[Greg Amy]

...is there anything stopping someone from dropping a 3.2L S54 into an E36 M3 right now, overboring and bumping compression 0.5?
Yes, the class does not currently allow 3.2L engines, except as per that table. And, as per the opening philosophy, you cannot take an engine from that table and install it into any other chassis.

However, the class displacement limit will be bumped to 3.2 in 2012 (assuming BoD approval, which I wholly expect) so it will be legal for next year. And if someone does it, jesu kristy I'd love to watch that!


Nothing stopping anyone from putting a built S50 (3.0L USDM engine) into an E30 bmw and going nutzo with cams and upping compression and such...that will be 290 at the wheels easy in that case.Correct. See above "jesu kristy".


If this isn't class creeep I don't know what is.It isn't creep. It's the exact philosophy and intent of the class, the kind of thinking and engineering we're encouraging for STU.

This is STU. See post above.


...it would be wise then to also do something along the lines like make STL a National class...Ah, a man with own heart. Help promote it, send emails to your reps, encourage people to double-dip in STL to get its numbers up.


... and bump the displacment limit to under 2500cc...Nope, sorry. STL was created for two basic purposes: one, because there was no way to get sub-2L car light enough to make them competitive in STU; and two, to have a lesser prep version a la the current World Challenge Touring.

If it's your contention that 2L-2.5L cars are in the same boat as STL, where they can't get light enough or be allowed enough mods to compete with 3.2L full-tilt-boogie cars, then that's another matter entirely. The resolution for that may be another class, though given STL's difficulties with getting National status I'd not hold out hope for that. But if you can demonstrate that a full-tilt-boogie (ftB) 2.5L car cannot EVER put out as much power-per-cc as a ftB 3.2L car, no matter how much money is tossed at it, then you'd have a leg to stand on. But I've not seen anyone try, so it's hard to gage.


Or perhaps just leave the class alone for a little while.That's where we are now. We spent a lot of time on the class this year trying to figure in how we were going to merge in WC cars, and how to handle forced induction, and to get a general philosophy hashed out and published so that we have a strong foundation for going forward. I'd like to think we're there (if you think differently, speak up; we're listening). There are NO (none, zip, zero, nada) major changes in the works for STx, the only thing we expect to see going forward are classification and allowance requests.


Increasing the class displacement limit to 3.2L is solving what problem that presently exists?To discontinue the consistent requests for 3.2L cars as specific allowances, cars that we think fit within the performance goals of the class. The S54 fits within that expectation and is weighted at the same 1.1#/cc as all the other cars.


SpecE36 (BMW CR)...a field filler for STU
I concur. Do not read in those allowances as expectations of competitiveness. They are, for the most part, responses to specific requests for inclusion. "Sure, come play in the pool, but don't expect to win." Same goes for IT cars, Spec Miatas, TDI Cup cars, etc.

GA

[Z3_GoCar]

300 whp is NOTHING in STU. With a weight of ~3500# a 3.2L engine can put out somewhere around 385 crank and still be within the class goals (a guesstimate; I don't have the exact numbers).

You guys need to realize that STU ain't no "let's just cobble something together and go racing" kind of class. STU is a "let's compete in World Challenge GTS-caliber cars". If you're not happy competing against a RealTime Racing-quality Acura TSX, or a Stasis-quality Audi A4 turbo AWD, or a BimmerWorld-quality BMW E46 M3, then you are going to be very frustrated and very unhappy in STU.

I'm not trying to be an ass. We most assuredly welcome your participation in STU, but you need to "level-set" your expectations with that mindset.

GA


Ha, that's only 15/20 hp more than the oe CSL, it's still got at least another half point of compression, intake/exhaust port jobs, removing the remaining cat's and mufflers, and the intake work left to make more than that.

You should have access to the World Challenge VTS horsepower results. The VTS I have doesn't list the hp:

http://www.world-challenge.com/includes/tng/pub/tNG_download.php?id=3d2c0c993fa7358f06dc1f09a88ab9 7c

[Z3_GoCar]

Ha, that's only 15/20 hp more than the oe CSL, it's still got at least another half point of compression, intake/exhaust port jobs, removing the remaining cat's and mufflers, and the intake work left to make more than that.

You should have access to the World Challenge VTS horsepower results. The VTS I have doesn't list the hp:

http://www.world-challenge.com/includes/tng/pub/tNG_download.php?id=3d2c0c993fa7358f06dc1f09a88ab9 7c

Chuck Stickley's already got 400hp from his S-54:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1555358&highlight=stickley+s54

[Greg Amy]

Chuck Stickley's already got 400hp from his S-54

The one described as "...over 400whp on a 3.4l stroker s54 that revved out north of 8500. I remember him saying it cost a ton, somewhere near $40k though."? Doesn't sound STU-compliant to me...

All the other non-turbo S54 engines and dyno charts there are indicating 350-ish. At ~3500# sounds like a good STU fit.

[Z3_GoCar]

The one described as "...over 400whp on a 3.4l stroker s54 that revved out north of 8500. I remember him saying it cost a ton, somewhere near $40k though."? Doesn't sound STU-compliant to me...

All the other non-turbo S54 engines and dyno charts there are indicating 350-ish. At ~3500# sounds like a good STU fit.

That's 350 with stock cams, which are open, and without head polish/porting. The right oe cams and it's another 10 hp, without even resorting to pulleys, or overdriving the two dry sump stages, which are prefectly STU legal.

[Greg Amy]

IMO, to me it still sounds within the philosophy and intent of STU...if you disagree, I encourage you to send a letter to the CRB/STAC, we'll definitely discuss it. - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

IMO, to me it still sounds within the philosophy and intent of STU...if you disagree, I encourage you to send a letter to the CRB/STAC, we'll definitely discuss it. - GA
Check this out:

http://store.vacmotorsports.com/vac---s54-carbon-fiber-race-style-airbox-p743c203.aspx?Thread=True

15-20hp gain over a CSL air box, that'd put it right at 370-380hp without any internal blueprinting, compression bump, or even underdrive pulleys. I think we've got the motor to have here.

[Mrsideways]

Check this out:

http://store.vacmotorsports.com/vac---s54-carbon-fiber-race-style-airbox-p743c203.aspx?Thread=True

15-20hp gain over a CSL air box, that'd put it right at 370-380hp without any internal blueprinting, compression bump, or even underdrive pulleys. I think we've got the motor to have here.

I thought we were gonna try to keep Independent throttle bodies out of STU. I realize they come stock on the S54's but just sayin :shrug:

[JS154]

The one described as "...over 400whp on a 3.4l stroker s54 that revved out north of 8500. I remember him saying it cost a ton, somewhere near $40k though."? Doesn't sound STU-compliant to me...

All the other non-turbo S54 engines and dyno charts there are indicating 350-ish. At ~3500# sounds like a good STU fit.

The S52 is 3152cc.

The S54 is 3246cc, which makes the whole concern moot. The S54 is too large for STU, even if 3.2L becomes the rule for 2012.

[Z3_GoCar]

The S52 is 3152cc.

The S54 is 3246cc, which makes the whole concern moot. The S54 is too large for STU, even if 3.2L becomes the rule for 2012.

Nope, it's still a 3.2 as per the STCS:


I. Weights and Engine Allowances

Minimum weights for cars with normally aspirated piston engines will
be determined by 1.1 lbs/cc displacement for the installed engine (see
following table). Displacement is the factory displacement for the installed
engine. For the purpose of weight assign ment, engine displacement will
be rounded to the nearest 100cc (e.g., 2150cc = 2200cc and 2149cc
= 2100cc).

[Mrsideways]

The one described as "...over 400whp on a 3.4l stroker s54 that revved out north of 8500. I remember him saying it cost a ton, somewhere near $40k though."? Doesn't sound STU-compliant to me...

All the other non-turbo S54 engines and dyno charts there are indicating 350-ish. At ~3500# sounds like a good STU fit.

The problem is as you get faster weight means less. If you were doing a drag race from 120-150mph would you take the 2000lbs car with 200 hp or the 3500lbs car with 350hp (given they both had the same CoD)? I think the saving grace in all this HP to weight is that a 3500lbs car on 8 inch wide wheels aint gonna stop very well.

[Matt93SE]

Yeah, good luck getting a set of 245/45/17 Hoosiers to last a 30+min race on a 3500lb car with 350hp.

[JoshS]

The T2 Camaros did it, and that was with crappy camber too. But they complained a lot about it.

[JS154]

Nope, it's still a 3.2 as per the STCS:


I

.
Weights and Engine Allowances


Minimum weights for cars with normally aspirated piston engines will


be determined by 1.1 lbs/cc displacement for the installed engine (see

following table). Displacement is the factory displacement for the installed

engine. For








the purpose of weight assign ment, engine displacement will


be rounded to the nearest 100cc (e.g., 2150cc = 2200cc



and 2149cc
= 2100cc).



Correct, but the rule specifially states "for the purposes of weight assignment".


it does not say that calulation is to be used for engine displacement eligibilty.


Reading the proposed rule strictly, "up to 3.2L" = 3200cc.


So the question then is what is the 3.2l cutoff? Is up to 3200 actual cc the ceiling for eligibility, or is 3200 calculated cc the cutoff? If the latter, the limit is really 3.249 litres, not 3.2litres.


The wording also says "displacement is the factory displacement". 3246cc is greater than 3.2l


for example: 5.0l (old old trans am limit) - Ford 302, Chevy 305. "5.0l" engines, but both were under the 5000cc limit.


I guess my point is the actual displacement limit should be clarified, assuming the proposed rule is adopted.

[Z3_GoCar]

My guess is the e-46 generation M3/S-54 is being brought into STU, because STU is being alighned to world challenge GTU, where this generation M3 and some of the pony cars are.

[Greg Amy]

My guess is the e-46 generation M3/S-54 is being brought into STU...

Don't overthink this. The car is NOT "being brought in", it just so happens to have a displacement that meets our stated philosophy for the class. And the philosophy for the class was changed from 3.0 to 3.2L because of the number of requests for exceptions we were getting for 3.2L cars, all of which we approved and expected to be approved going forward.

Nothing more, nothing less. No smoke-filled rooms, no dark ulterior motives to make the world great for Bayerische Motoren Werke.

We have demonstrated the will to exclude cars that exceed the performance expectations of the classes (see STL and Integra ITR and S2000, various Loti products). If you truly believe the performance of any of these engines is far and above the potential of its competitors, then put all your information together with a submission to the CRB. It will be seriously considered, but you better support the request; sending something like "exclude the 2012 M3 because it's too fast" will surely be responded with "we will continue to monitor the performance of the class".

It all starts with a well-written letter. Make your case, support it with relevant data.

GA