PDA

View Full Version : Eurasian Engines - Proposal?



Knestis
02-19-2012, 09:03 PM
So if a guy were to want to request that non-US market engines be allowed in STL, what's the most compelling way to present it?

It seems like a dead-nuts cinch, logic-wise, but (1) I don't know what the actual objection is among the CRB members apparently opposed to it, so (2) don't know how to gain traction on proposing a change.

Thoughts appreciated...

K

Greg Amy
02-20-2012, 08:49 AM
We have a proposal pending to re-submit to CRB recommendations for non-US market engines. You may recall this was rejected in the July 2011 Fastrack:

Non-USDM engines will not be permitted in ST due to limited availability of some non-USDM engines and difficulties in compliance enforcement.

GA

Chip42
02-20-2012, 09:26 AM
compliance is the responsibility of the entrant and his competitors, and is no more difficult than something obscure it IT, GT, etc..

allow these motors upon individual request, require full documentation be submitted, and float the allowance WITH RELEVANT NUMBERS under suggested rules in fasttrack for responses from the rest of membership. if the submitted data is wrong, it can be protested and the classification updated.

Knestis
02-20-2012, 11:58 AM
I did know that it had been shot down - root of my question - but didn't know you all had another proposal going forward. If there are specific aspects of how it's being angled that we can support with emails to the CRB, let us know.

thanks!

K

mossaidis
02-20-2012, 12:40 PM
Lookin at it from the other side...

Since the B18C5 (Type R) motor is disallowed by the STAC/CRB, then how can STAC determine which Eurasian motors have similar factory prep levels so that they can disallow those as well? Unless you ask the STAC to research each Eurasian motor that is requested, they would have no idea and doing so would seem like an bad administrative nightmare, more so than seemingly in IT. The other option here would be to allow ANY 2.0 liter or under motor.

Somewhat tanglible, perhaps the STAC would also consider being more specific regarding brand relationships. HONDA-ACURA, FORD-MERCURY, etc

JS154
02-20-2012, 01:06 PM
Somewhat tanglible, perhaps the STAC would also consider being more specific regarding brand relationships. HONDA-ACURA, FORD-MERCURY, etc

Are you suggesting the rules wording about the manufacturer of the chassis and engine being the same are not clear enough already?

mossaidis
02-20-2012, 01:16 PM
Are you okay with folks placing a Fiat engine in a Chrysler or vice versa? or a saab into GM? This is nothing new. in our new world or corporate hierachy and subs, where do we draw the line?

TStiles
02-20-2012, 01:42 PM
When are the rules going to stabilize ?

One week we get a weight increase ( I hear there is a proposal for another weight increase for the RWD cars ) now we're taking a second look at non USDM engines.

I've already made my decision to just run my ITA package in STL until this thing shakes out , but I'm concerned that few people will build a car until the rules are stable.

BTW : Thanks to you guys on the STAC , I don't always agree with there your going , but you guys have invested a ton of time into getting this thing going.

Z3_GoCar
02-20-2012, 01:51 PM
Are you suggesting the rules wording about the manufacturer of the chassis and engine being the same are not clear enough already?

:shrug:

Mercedes Benze makes Honda under license in South Africa since the mid 80's, and since MB was the owner of Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep through Daimler/Chrysler, which only fell apart a few years ago, does that mean that Acura/Honda <-> Dodge/Chrysler? When the whole automotive world gets involved, it starts getting a little less clear.

Greg Amy
02-20-2012, 02:05 PM
Non-US engines, if approved, will be on a case-by-case approval basis, and all allowed engines will have to be investigated prior to allowance. All engine specs, such as compression ratio and camshaft lift, will still have to be met (i.e., if the stock Euro-cam has too much valve lift, you will not be allowed to run it). As you noted, without prior research there's no way to know if another sub-2L engine can/will produce more than what the class currently allows; that limit is inferentially around 170 hp*.

As for what engines are allowed for swaps, there is currently a debate within the STAC about that issue in regard to low-volume/alternate engine manufacturers. The reg currently states:

Alternate engines may be used, if the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g., an Acura engine installed into a Honda car) and was available in a car delivered in North America.

"Some say" this rule is unclear, especially when applied to specialty/low-volume chassis manufacturers that installed engines sourced from another manufacturer; e.g., Toyota engines installed in Lotus; can any Toyota engine thus be installed in said Lotus? Or can only Lotus engines (which don't exist) be alternately-installed in Lotus cars? "Others say" that since the engine and chassis manufacturer are different, only the original, installed engine can be run.

There's also some limited debate regarding familial relationships. The reg above specifically implies that familial engines (Honda/Acura) are allowed, not just "Honda engines in a Honda" (for example). "Some say" that this familial relationship should be one of very close, obvious ties (Honda/Acura, VW/Audi, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti, etc). "Others say" that these relationships should be much looser, even to the point of very loose co-ventures (e.g., Saab engines can be installed in a Pontiac). Unfortunately, this last issue is very difficult to determine, as if one stays too tight then some opportunities are lost; on the other hand, if one gets too loose then using the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" logic you could pretty much install anything into anything.

As of right now the obvious ones are, well, obvious. But short of explicitly listing each and every possible combination within the Super Touring regs - which we have no interest in doing - it will be left up to the competitor to use their best judgement. Part of that "best judgement" may be to submit a clarification request to the CRB and ask for explicit "blessing" for the combo before you start, lest you risk spending time/money/motivation and subsequently being subjected to the protest/appeal process.

But, IMO we did ourselves no favors last year when we explicitly "blessed" a request to install a VW 4-banger into a Porsche 944.

If you believe you may have found a short-term competitive advantage in a combo (short term because once you've run it, the cat's out of the bag), you might consider using the GCR rules clarification process which, if your request is approved, will not be published in Fastrack (rejections are published).

You takes your chances otherwise.

GA

* That just my WAG; there's no hard-coded limit. That is based on the fact that the Integra GS-R's 170hp is allowed, but the Type R's 190hp is not. On the other hand, we just approved the 220(?)hp Renesis in STL at a very high weight (3000+?) so that "horsepower limit" is quite grey right now...

Z3_GoCar
02-20-2012, 02:31 PM
The difference is that GM used to own Sabb, same as they own Holden in Austrailia or used to own Opel in Germany. Now if we're talking joint ventures, that'd be like putting a Subaru in a GM product, since Sabb partnered with Sabaru in the last few years while the Government Motors owned them, and share a chassis. Speaking of chassis sharing, what about Mazda and Ford, lots of chassis swapping there, Mx-6/Probe, Mazda 2/Fiestiva...

Knestis
02-20-2012, 05:07 PM
Thanks, Greg. I'm serious about the possibility of something different for Pablo in 2013, mostly because it might revive the enduro rental market for us...

K

Matt93SE
02-20-2012, 06:03 PM
Mx-6/Probe, Mazda 2/Fiestiva...

Mitsu and Chrysler..
Isuzu and GM..
Toyota and GM..
Toyota and Lotus..

And since FF specs both Ford and Honda engines, one could extrapolate using a Honda engine in their Focus......
:dead_horse:

lateapex911
02-20-2012, 08:35 PM
Non-US engines, if approved, will be on a case-by-case approval basis, and all allowed engines will have to be investigated prior to allowance. All engine specs, such as compression ratio and camshaft lift, will still have to be met (i.e., if the stock Euro-cam has too much valve lift, you will not be allowed to run it). As you noted, without prior research there's no way to know if another sub-2L engine can/will produce more than what the class currently allows; that limit is inferentially around 170 hp*.


* That just my WAG; there's no hard-coded limit. That is based on the fact that the Integra GS-R's 170hp is allowed, but the Type R's 190hp is not. On the other hand, we just approved the 220(?)hp Renesis in STL at a very high weight (3000+?) so that "horsepower limit" is quite grey right now...

The way I've come to think of it is that the grand Poobah who dreamed up the concept and drew the line in the sand for numbers based it on the numbers Greg mentioned, BUT, what he REALLY did was to base it on 1.8 liter engines than can breath to that level. I say that since, as Greg points out, the higher hp version Type Arrrr, is forbidden, as is the S2000 version Making 120hp/litre) And they clearly feel there is something OTHER than cams and compression that make those numbers happen.

Now the Renesis motor is an interesting addition. IT makes 210 (WHP) or so in IT trim. Stock, it's under 200, by a significant amount, I think. Which, if in stock form, put's it right in the TEg engine wheelhouse. What was the reason for the extreme weight, I wonder?

Andy Bettencourt
02-20-2012, 10:11 PM
What was the reason for the extreme weight, I wonder?

They don't want rotards. They want them as field fillers, but not real competitors. They specifically only allow piston engines but put them in at crazy weights to give people places to play without a chance of competitiveness.

It's simple. :)

StephenB
02-21-2012, 12:52 AM
Honest question which may be answered by Andy's answer...

Why can the S2000 run at ITR spec but the RX8 has to add weight? Why can't I run my RX8 as an ITR car?

Stephen

PS: Jake you are spot on for IT gains and stock they have 170-180. Biggest issue with any Rotary Dyno number is that none are really set up for them specifically so the user error is pretty high.

lateapex911
02-21-2012, 02:11 AM
Honest question which may be answered by Andy's answer...

Why can the S2000 run at ITR spec but the RX8 has to add weight? Why can't I run my RX8 as an ITR car?

Stephen

PS: Jake you are spot on for IT gains and stock they have 170-180. Biggest issue with any Rotary Dyno number is that none are really set up for them specifically so the user error is pretty high.

Well, you know how I know, right? The thing committee guys do called homework. ;)

Greg Amy
02-21-2012, 08:05 AM
Why can the S2000 run at ITR spec but the RX8 has to add weight? Why can't I run my RX8 as an ITR car?
Displacement. The "displacement equivalency" of a rotary engine is 2x, thus your "1.3L" Renesis is actually considered to be 2.6L and is thus ineligible for STL absent the specific allowance(s). You are allowed to run it in STU as an ITR car.

In my personal opinion, the philosophy of Super Touring engines is one of allowed intake/engine modifications and classification based purely on displacement. Thus, in my mind an unmodified rotary engine does not fit into the philosophy of STL on two fronts.

But, obviously, that's only one person's opinion.

GA

Ron Earp
02-21-2012, 08:09 AM
"Others say" that these relationships should be much looser, even to the point of very loose co-ventures (e.g., Saab engines can be installed in a Pontiac). Unfortunately, this last issue is very difficult to determine, as if one stays too tight then some opportunities are lost; on the other hand, if one gets too loose then using the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" logic you could pretty much install anything into anything.

Why worry about it at all? An engine is an engine. Pick an engine, put it in a chassis.

What "Super Touring" principle, or SCCA core value, are we upholding by only allowing engine swaps within the same company?

Why is Honda <-> Acura swap okay, but a GM <-> Ford swap not okay?

Andy Bettencourt
02-21-2012, 09:05 AM
Honest question which may be answered by Andy's answer...

Why can the S2000 run at ITR spec but the RX8 has to add weight? Why can't I run my RX8 as an ITR car?

Stephen


So Greg answered a bit but let me simplify for you. There are only a few ITR cars that fit the allowance rule for running in STL in IT-spec. Has to be below 2L. Since the rotards are considered 2.6, they aren't eligible for that specific allowance. However, they did make a specific allowance for the RX-8 (or any Renisis-equipped Mazda product) at 3000lbs. Why, I have no idea, but that is 'better' than not being able to run in STL at all if that is where you want to double dip. Most IT cars go to STU and some even to STO.

JS154
02-21-2012, 12:53 PM
Honest question which may be answered by Andy's answer...

Why can the S2000 run at ITR spec but the RX8 has to add weight? Why can't I run my RX8 as an ITR car?

Stephen

PS: Jake you are spot on for IT gains and stock they have 170-180. Biggest issue with any Rotary Dyno number is that none are really set up for them specifically so the user error is pretty high.

Are you asking about running the S2K or RX8 in ITR trim in STL or STU?

Knestis
02-21-2012, 10:18 PM
Greg (et al.) - Can I get some guidance re: what specs you need in order to consider a specific spec-line request? What kind of documentation counts as sufficient evidence on which to base a decision? I'm looking at the Euro-spec VW ABF 2.0 16v, as found in the continental GTI of the same generation as Pablo.

Thanks in advance,

Kirk

Greg Amy
02-21-2012, 10:24 PM
Can I get some guidance re: what specs you need in order to consider a specific spec-line request?
Not yet. We need to get the general idea approved before we can get to the specifics.

My sense is that we're going to need power output specs to ensure it does not exceed expected guidelines for the class (whatever those are), and then relevant scrutineering specs so it can be tech'd (e.g., intake manifold design/part numbers, throttle body size/part numbers, valve sizes, some idea of stock port configuration, etc). But that's just a WAG on my part right now.

Let's get buy-in on the concept then we can work on the details.

GA

Knestis
02-21-2012, 11:12 PM
Not yet. We need to get the general idea approved before we can get to the specifics.

My sense is that we're going to need power output specs to ensure it does not exceed expected guidelines for the class (whatever those are), and then relevant scrutineering specs so it can be tech'd (e.g., intake manifold design/part numbers, throttle body size/part numbers, valve sizes, some idea of stock port configuration, etc). But that's just a WAG on my part right now.

Let's get buy-in on the concept then we can work on the details.

GA

Excellent - thanks!

K

lateapex911
02-22-2012, 12:21 AM
Your thread over on RRAX brought about a response from Mr Keane (of the CRB ), who seems to indicate he's in favor of the concept.

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=38540&page=2


I really really hope they don't do the 5% off strut cars to equalize performance to RWD cars. Right idea but wrong order. Get big issues resolved, then do the smaller bits.

I AM encouraged though, to see a bit of a break from the Everything is equal, just pick your weight and race mentality. Allowing that chassis selection does matter, and wanting to adjust for that...by genre...is a good indication that they are thinking that it would be good to get more cars on the same relative footing.

CRallo
02-22-2012, 01:07 AM
I'm very happy to see that this is being worked on. Please inform us when and how we should show our support most productivly.

Knestis
02-22-2012, 08:24 AM
Holy CRAP, Jake! You didn't just link to the Sandbox did you? You know wha...

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/20/54357/end-of-earth.jpg?t=20111020075044

Rabbit07
02-22-2012, 09:00 AM
Holy CRAP, Jake! You didn't just link to the Sandbox did you? You know wha...

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/20/54357/end-of-earth.jpg?t=20111020075044

That's some funny $h^! right there......... LOL!

StephenB
02-22-2012, 10:01 AM
Are you asking about running the S2K or RX8 in ITR trim in STL or STU?

RX8 in ITR trim.


edited because...

Greg Amy
02-22-2012, 10:21 AM
edited because...
"racecar"...?

Rabbit07
02-22-2012, 11:10 AM
RX8 in ITR trim.


edited because...

You are perfectly welcome to install a 13B in the RX8 and run it at the 13b weight. There are options. Everyone would like there car to fit inside the Super touring Box neatly and cleanly. It just doesn't work that way.

I for one know of an RX8 that will be running ST in GLDiv. Lets see how it does and if it really is that far off, then we can re look at it. I suspect it will do just fine.

StephenB
02-22-2012, 11:42 AM
Chris,

I was confused because I thought other ITR cars could run in STL with ITR prep levels. Some others on this site posted they were going to run an S2000 under ITR prep rules. That is what didn't make sense to me.

Sorry, Back on topic...

Stephen

Eagle7
02-22-2012, 01:29 PM
I for one know of an RX8 that will be running ST in GLDiv. Lets see how it does and if it really is that far off, then we can re look at it. I suspect it will do just fine.
If that Huffmaster kid is driving, it won't matter how far off the car is. :happy204:

Ron Earp
02-22-2012, 01:36 PM
Still wondering what rule or principle of the SCCA we're upholding by only allowing "in family" engine swaps, whatever that tortured interpretation is.

StephenB
02-22-2012, 01:42 PM
I would like to see more of what Ron is talking about... complete engine swaps. set the weight based on engine adders, suspension adders and maybe a few other things and let them run! Use any engine in any chasis! That would be cool and I bet we would see some cool cars to :)

Stephen

Greg Amy
02-22-2012, 01:43 PM
Submit a rule proposal, see what happens...

Ron Earp
02-22-2012, 01:54 PM
Submit a rule proposal, see what happens...

I suspect you already have an idea of what will happen, no dice. What I'm asking is what is the foundation for allowing only in family swaps?

Greg Amy
02-22-2012, 02:00 PM
I suspect you already have an idea of what will happen, no dice. What I'm asking is what is the foundation for allowing only in family swaps?
Not intending it a personal attack, Ron, but that's just a really silly idea. Short of roundy-round and drag racing, you'd be hard-pressed to find any other racing org that allows, for example, installing Ford engines into Camaros. I doubt even the vaunted N-group does that.

My first thought when I read your post way up there was not "why are we not being allowed to do that?" but "why in the hell would anyone want to do that...?" I mean, it's like dogs and cats sleeping together...

If you want to go that direction, just build a GT tubeframe car and slap whatever shaped headlights and logo attract your attention.

GA

Ron Earp
02-22-2012, 02:23 PM
Not intending it a personal attack, Ron, but that's just a really silly idea. Short of roundy-round and drag racing, you'd be hard-pressed to find any other racing org that allows, for example, installing Ford engines into Camaros. I doubt even the vaunted N-group does that.



I dunno, I suppose I'm a stupid minority that doesn't recognize an unwritten race rule that reads "Thou shalt not swap Honda engines into a Ford chassis, it is just a really silly idea".

The rule set is based on displacement and weight, the engines don't care who made them and I'm not sure why the racers would.

Andy Bettencourt
02-22-2012, 02:37 PM
Chris,

I was confused because I thought other ITR cars could run in STL with ITR prep levels. Some others on this site posted they were going to run an S2000 under ITR prep rules. That is what didn't make sense to me.

Sorry, Back on topic...

Stephen

But you understand the rule now right? Cars prepped to IT spec that are 2.0L and under. The rotaries are classed at 2.6L.

JS154
02-22-2012, 02:53 PM
Not intending it a personal attack, Ron, but that's just a really silly idea. Short of roundy-round and drag racing, you'd be hard-pressed to find any other racing org that allows, for example, installing Ford engines into Camaros. I doubt even the vaunted N-group does that.

My first thought when I read your post way up there was not "why are we not being allowed to do that?" but "why in the hell would anyone want to do that...?" I mean, it's like dogs and cats sleeping together...

If you want to go that direction, just build a GT tubeframe car and slap whatever shaped headlights and logo attract your attention.

GA

NASA GTS, which is about as open of a ruleset as you can get, does not even allow cross-make swaps. (They did at one point by manner of not prohibiting it, not it is prohibited)

lateapex911
02-22-2012, 04:54 PM
Holy CRAP, Jake! You didn't just link to the Sandbox did you? You know wha...

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/20/54357/end-of-earth.jpg?t=20111020075044
Uh oh!! Oh boy, I liked the box from this, the most high traffic site this side of TMZ!



I for one know of an RX8 that will be running ST in GLDiv. Lets see how it does and if it really is that far off, then we can re look at it. I suspect it will do just fine. __________________
Chris "The Cat Killer" Childs

Regarding the RX-8, Chris, so, if a car does ok at a race that you go to, it's classed appropriately??
I'n not sure I follow how a car with 180hp at 3000 can possibly cmpete with a car with 180hp that weighs 500 pounds less and runs on the same rubber. :shrug:

lateapex911
02-22-2012, 05:02 PM
Chris,

I was confused because I thought other ITR cars could run in STL with ITR prep levels. Some others on this site posted they were going to run an S2000 under ITR prep rules. That is what didn't make sense to me.

Sorry, Back on topic...

Stephen

As Andy said, Stephen, The STAC has decreed that they will use the 'double displacement' standard for rotaries when they class them in STL. So, a 1300cc 13B is the piston equivalent of 2.6 litres.
And STL is limited to cars less than 2.0 litres. No ITR BMW, for example, may run in any STL race.
But, a 2.0 litre ITR S2000 can run in it's IT configuration as it is 2.0 litres, but since the S2000 is on the chassis exclusion list in STL it may NOT run in STL configuration.

Follow? I missed it at first too.

Rabbit07
02-22-2012, 08:41 PM
Uh oh!! Oh boy, I liked the box from this, the most high traffic site this side of TMZ!




Regarding the RX-8, Chris, so, if a car does ok at a race that you go to, it's classed appropriately??
I'n not sure I follow how a car with 180hp at 3000 can possibly cmpete with a car with 180hp that weighs 500 pounds less and runs on the same rubber. :shrug:

I am really getting tired of F;d up comments like that. You guys have proven to me that your commentary is useless in this situation and really not worth the effort.

Andy Bettencourt
02-22-2012, 09:45 PM
Regarding the RX-8, Chris, so, if a car does ok at a race that you go to, it's classed appropriately??
I'n not sure I follow how a car with 180hp at 3000 can possibly cmpete with a car with 180hp that weighs 500 pounds less and runs on the same rubber. :shrug:

It's not supposed to be able to compete. The class is for piston engines. The STAC has just given the Renesis a place to 'be' in STL. The 'get a taste of National racing' theory. Other classes use it too. Once we (the collective we) stop trying to make every car fit into STL, the sooner we will shut up.

Z3_GoCar
02-22-2012, 11:00 PM
Forget even trying to get every make into STL. There's only one BMW euro option that would be interesting and they only made 2,600 of them total, and it's still not competitive with the Honda option. If I had a care for STL, I'd request the used of a cut down Individual Throttle Body intake from the USDM s54, and head porting at no penalty, as that'd be the only way the USDM M42's and M44's would be able to touch the Honda/Acura's on power. Otherwise, with only the approved mods they'll only get to the N45b20's 170-180hp range at best. So even with select Euro options nothing works.

Oh, yeah if you want to know what the N45b20 is, it's from the 320Si, and only 2600 were made as homologation specials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N45

Flow bench data to show why this is so:
http://www.e30m3project.com/e30m3performance/tech_articles/engine-tech/flow-1/chart-4.htm

Rabbit07
02-22-2012, 11:05 PM
Forget even trying to get every make into STL. There's only one BMW euro option that would be interesting and they only made 2,600 of them total, and it's still not competitive with the Honda option. If I had a care for STL, I'd request the used of a cut down Individual Throttle Body intake from the USDM s54, and head porting at no penalty, as that'd be the only way the USDM M42's and M44's would be able to touch the Honda/Acura's on power. Otherwise, with only the approved mods they'll only get to the N45b20's 170-180hp range at best. So even with select Euro options nothing works.

See the March Fastrack for my request for ITBs for the M42. Currently not going to happen

Z3_GoCar
02-22-2012, 11:12 PM
See the March Fastrack for my request for ITBs for the M42. Currently not going to happen

I saw that... though their response didn't make sense to me, unless you were asking for the S50 euro ITB's. You still might have the option if you were to make a M42 powered e46, using the ITB's from an e-46 M3. Swap the motor and keep the chassis ITB intake manifold. It'd be nice if other chassis could have that option other than the e-46, e-36 Z3, and e-85 Z4's. :shrug:

Rabbit07
02-22-2012, 11:16 PM
I saw that... though their response didn't make sense to me, unless you were asking for the S50 euro ITB's. You still might have the option if you were to make a M42 powered e46, using the ITB's from an e-46 M3. Swap the motor and keep the chassis ITB intake manifold. It'd be nice if other chassis could have that option other than the e-46, e-36 Z3, and e-85 Z4's. :shrug:

Now that is out of the box thinking. Love it!

coreyehcx
02-23-2012, 12:14 AM
If this does pass, how many of you are going to actually be interested in building an STL car?



Any "R" motor would need to be banned as well, if someone had a B16B at ~180+ crank hp at 1600cc weight.....intake lift is above the limit anyway.



Im also interested in head swaps between different motors from the same series but that might be too much to police.

Ex. B16A2/3 head on a B18C1 block...

Z3_GoCar
02-23-2012, 12:26 AM
Sounds like their going to take a front wheel drive Honda class and add some other front wheel drive options via various JDM/Euro market motors. Why not a reward for all strut based suspensions, not just the FWD struts? So, I'm not interested....

coreyehcx
02-23-2012, 12:35 AM
Honestly there isn't much to gain for Honda's going the JDM/EDM route outside of availability and cheaper prices for long blocks.

DoubleXL240Z
02-23-2012, 11:42 AM
I saw that... though their response didn't make sense to me, unless you were asking for the S50 euro ITB's. You still might have the option if you were to make a M42 powered e46, using the ITB's from an e-46 M3. Swap the motor and keep the chassis ITB intake manifold. It'd be nice if other chassis could have that option other than the e-46, e-36 Z3, and e-85 Z4's. :shrug:
James and Chris, Look up an S42 engine!! and hold onto your socks!! 1999cc's and 315HP!!!! Stock with ITBs!

DoubleXL240Z
02-23-2012, 11:48 AM
e36 320i STW pila.
Baza motora je (m42b18)1.8 iS

s42B20 (Version: 08/1995):
* Stroke = 85mm
* Bore = 86.5mm
* Compression ratio = 12.4:1
* Total displacement = 1.997ccm
* Rod length = 145mm
* Inlet cam = 312 degrees (spread: 94) (E=40, Es=48 (@ 2mm lift) )
* Exhaust cam = 304 degrees (spread: 98) (A=45, As=28 (@ 2mm lift) )
* Inlet Valve diameter = 35mm
* Exhaust valve diameter = 32mm
* Inlet port metrics: W=52mm, H=29.7, Radius=14.85mm
* Slide throttle diameter = 46mm
* Header = 4-2
* ECU = ECU4A.1
* Power DIN 70020 = 285PS / 207kw @ 8300rpm
* Torque DIN 70020 = 245Nm @ 7000rpm
* Max rpm = 8500rpm (FIA regulation "SuperTouring")
* Gasoline quality = Super Plus (Oktan min. ROZ 98)

Z3_GoCar
02-23-2012, 11:54 AM
How many did them make of those? I've herd of one in Switzerland... Lot's of stuff on it that wouldn't fly, dual injectors, 2mm of lift...

Greg Amy
02-23-2012, 12:46 PM
That's why we'd review and approve each and every non-US engine... ;) Though that thing would slot nicely into STU (and would drop right into Eric's car...) - GA

lateapex911
02-23-2012, 01:11 PM
I am really getting tired of F;d up comments like that. You guys have proven to me that your commentary is useless in this situation and really not worth the effort.
Chris, hey, I'm not trying to attack you...
But, look at what you wrote. I'm sure you were just typing off the top of your head, but really....and I'm not trying to be the biggest dick around... that statement makes little sense.
First, are you REALLY going to look at it if it doesn't do well???? And if so, based on what sample size? (Forgetting the whole what defines the 'that far off' aspect). Basicaly, you're saying that the STAC is going to mointor performance and make adjustments. I really don't think thats the case, but, obviously, I could be wrong.

Second, you said you were sure it would do fine. Well, yea, maybe against unprepared STL cars, or double dippers, but who cares about that? I can't see how the motor has a snowballs chance in hell of competing when it's hundreds of pounds heavy.

Listen, I'm of the philosophy that if you list an engine, make it so that it fits. If it doesn't fit,* then don't list it. I'm not sure I see the point of listing it, but thats based on my philosophy.

*It seems that it misses the class standards because you consider it to be 2.6L, above the max size, and it's stock rating is well above the max allowed. IIRC the stock rating is (was?) 238, which is right with the S2000 2.0L (240) that is excluded.

So, I'm sorry to piss you off, but your comments seemed at odds with my perception of reality.

lateapex911
02-23-2012, 01:16 PM
Sounds like their going to take a front wheel drive Honda class and add some other front wheel drive options via various JDM/Euro market motors. Why not a reward for all strut based suspensions, not just the FWD struts? So, I'm not interested....

From the thread over on RRAX:
I suggested that they do some adders along those lines, James. So for, Peter doesn't seem to love it, LOL.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pkeane http://www.roadraceautox.com/images/styles/cruizn/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=1022549#post1022549)
Just a couple of points of clarification, the STAC have not changed the rear wheel drive multiplier. We have discussed it and we are going to continue to watch the performance levels. Jim (CRB member and friend) your STL Miata is currently only 60 pounds heavier than my Integra. I do not think we would change the RWD multiplier until after the Runoffs, and only if the data supports it.

I believe the bigger STL issue is to give the FWD strut cars an increased weight break. I do think a 5% (maybe more) deduct might be right for these cars. This would help the VW, Mazda, Neon, Nissan and Toyotas.

Interesting.
Peter, an interesting thought experiment would be to take a good RWD chassis from Honda and the best FWD chassis they have and put the same engine in them. Understand the driveline differences and adjust HP accordingly. So, in a race between an Integra and an S2000* say, with equal drivers, over an average track and a normal race distance, which will win? By how much? Most will say the S2000, and by more than 2.5% extra weight will equalize.
So, irregardless of the struts, the first thing** I see that needs to be nailed is the basic number for FWD vs RWD. Afterall, ALL cars are one or the other (or AWD). Once THAT is nailed, THEN a strut subtractor can be established.

I'd also suggest that, if you are going to give a subtractor to FWD cars with bad drive end geometry, then the same consideration should be given to RWD cars with bad drive end geometry. Now, you can do that as an adder, (as in add X% to cars with Double wishbone type suspensions on the drive end, OR, use those as the standard and subtract X% for cars that lack DW type suspensions on the drive end. Depends on what you consider your 'norm'. Seems like the bogey car has been the Integra, so yea, a subtractor for stut based cars would be the way to go.
Note that the X% RWD subtractor might not be the same percentage as the FWD subtractor. The committee might find that the negative effects of a bad suspension at the drive end is worse for a FWD car than a RWD car..

So, I'd see it playing out as something like:
Basic CC per pound math. (ie 1.8L =2430) Norm car is DW FWD.
RWD? Add 5%.
FWD with struts? Minus 2.5%
RWD with bad (non double wishbone type) suspension at drive end? Plus 5%, but minus 1%.
(Establish a policy on the order of math. ie, if RWD, add 5%, (2.0L =2700, plus 5%, (135) =2835, THEN minus 1% for a total of: 2806.65, rounded to 2805. OR, just use 4% from the start. Once rounding is done it likely makes little difference. 2700 x 4% =2808, rounded is 2810. Just do it the same every time)

So, a RWD car with a good suspension would be 7.5 % more than a FWD car with strut front.

I think the 5% factor is more appropriate, and looking at World Challenge weights backs that up. Also, HP levels are in the ITR-ish range, and experience there is that the FWD factor is pretty darn close.

Quote:
I am also making a pitch at the convention to allow non US spec engines in ST on a case by case basis. This would allow BMW to run the euro 2.0l in STL and will also help Nissans, Toyotas, Subarus and VW.

PK
IF it helps diversity and getting more COMPETITIVE options, then I'm for it. I understand the issues are with understanding the allowances on a committee level, and that's tricky, but, overall, the pain is worth it.

*. Regarding the S2000, can you, Peter (since you were in on the inception of the class), or anyone, explain to me why the S2000 chassis is forbidden, BUT, the Miata (and, intheory, all cars like it) is allowed? Seems to me they share the same generic stuff. Yea wheelbase is different, but I KNOW you guys can't be parsing wheelbase differences as there aren't even chassis adders in the class. So what gives? Makes no sense to me.

DoubleXL240Z
02-23-2012, 03:26 PM
I'm going to jump in again. My biggest concern about any of this is "case by case basis". That is absolute BS!!!
Future quote; "You let the JDM XYZ in, but MY Euro ZYX can't! Thats not fair!"
People are screaming for a stable rule set, but than we are looking at a case by case basis on JDM (yo) and Euro/Aussie etc. So when the Euro surprise shows up and kicks their ass, than it gets booted or a trailer attached to it. Not very stable!! We are very familiar with the USDM engines and their potential, lets leave it at that.
I can understand the arguement regarding a worthwhile Nissan engine or whatever, but maybe its time for another car or class.
:dead_horse:I have seen( actually looked at numbers) the S42, a 315 HP 2l exotic. a M52B20? ( I believe) its a 2l version of the 2.5l BMW motor used in a million e30s and e36s, 8500 rpm 6 cylinder. I was talking with a BMW nerd, and he brought up like 5 motors most have never heard of, all under 2l all with crazy hp numbers.
Rant off, I gotta go add 90 lbs to my car now!!

lateapex911
02-23-2012, 03:36 PM
I'm going to jump in again. My biggest concern about any of this is "case by case basis". That is absolute BS!!!
Future quote; "You let the JDM XYZ in, but MY Euro ZYX can't! Thats not fair!"
People are screaming for a stable rule set, but than we are looking at a case by case basis on JDM (yo) and Euro/Aussie etc. So when the Euro surprise shows up and kicks their ass, than it gets booted or a trailer attached to it. Not very stable!! We are very familiar with the USDM engines and their potential, lets leave it at that.
I can understand the arguement regarding a worthwhile Nissan engine or whatever, but maybe its time for another car or class.
:dead_horse:I have seen( actually looked at numbers) the S42, a 315 HP 2l exotic. a M52B20? ( I believe) its a 2l version of the 2.5l BMW motor used in a million e30s and e36s, 8500 rpm 6 cylinder. I was talking with a BMW nerd, and he brought up like 5 motors most have never heard of, all under 2l all with crazy hp numbers.
Rant off, I gotta go add 90 lbs to my car now!!

Chris, I think what they are saying is actually consistent with what they are doing now. They currently exclude cars over a certain hp/litre threshold. It appears that they would do the same thing, using the same line in the sand, for non US models.

I really don't think somethings going to be allowed in, then get spanked with a lead paddle should it perform too well.

coreyehcx
02-23-2012, 05:21 PM
All engines still have to be under the STL limitations for compression, lift, and obviously the rest of the rules so it doesn't really matter unless someone is running a cheater motor.

Pop the hood and that would be pretty easy to identify if someone is running a JDM/EDM S54, B16B, and on and on....a quick search on a smart phone.

I dont see why some are so worried about this, Hondas/Acuras would be easy enough to police. The Mazdas, BMWs, VWs, Toyotas and other makes Im sure all have experts for each one that could supply data in terms of what to watch for or police. I could easily put together a cheater list and submit if that would help for Hondas, I know others are very knowledgeable about their makes and their over seas counterparts like Chip and his Toyota's, knestis with his, and many others.

Would that help at all?

I was questioned a little bit even about my B18B1 at Drivers School by the head instructors. Hey nice car, is that an oem manifold, is that the oem throttle body.....ha ha yes and yes..he so happened to be very familiar with Hondas.

Rabbit07
02-23-2012, 07:35 PM
:026:
Chris, hey, I'm not trying to attack you...
But, look at what you wrote. I'm sure you were just typing off the top of your head, but really....and I'm not trying to be the biggest dick around... that statement makes little sense.
First, are you REALLY going to look at it if it doesn't do well???? And if so, based on what sample size? (Forgetting the whole what defines the 'that far off' aspect). Basicaly, you're saying that the STAC is going to mointor performance and make adjustments. I really don't think thats the case, but, obviously, I could be wrong.

Second, you said you were sure it would do fine. Well, yea, maybe against unprepared STL cars, or double dippers, but who cares about that? I can't see how the motor has a snowballs chance in hell of competing when it's hundreds of pounds heavy.

Listen, I'm of the philosophy that if you list an engine, make it so that it fits. If it doesn't fit,* then don't list it. I'm not sure I see the point of listing it, but thats based on my philosophy.

*It seems that it misses the class standards because you consider it to be 2.6L, above the max size, and it's stock rating is well above the max allowed. IIRC the stock rating is (was?) 238, which is right with the S2000 2.0L (240) that is excluded.

So, I'm sorry to piss you off, but your comments seemed at odds with my perception of reality.

Yes, we will monitor.

JS154
02-23-2012, 09:27 PM
That's why we'd review and approve each and every non-US engine... ;) Though that thing would slot nicely into STU (and would drop right into Eric's car...) - GA

That would be an awesome engine for STU...if it had been delivered in a street car, which i don't believe it was. (S42)

The P54 would be a super cool motor to run in STU as well (E90 3er 2.0L BTCC/WTCC motor) ...I think they are still available form BMW at aroud $60k each.

the 2.0L S14 however, was delivered in street cars, in the E30 320is. It's a destroked 2.3L, same block, heads, etc. That would be a viable engine for STL, if it were to be allowed. With the compression and cam lift limits it would be a player in STL, doubtful it would be a winner, but certainly fun nonetheless. It would be cool in STU as well, but I think getting a BMW down to 2200# under the rules is not going to happen.

If I were doing this fresh, I would probably be looking at the N54 Turbo motor in the newest Z4 (2.0L Turbo).

Z3_GoCar
02-23-2012, 10:28 PM
From the thread over on RRAX:
I suggested that they do some adders along those lines, James. So for, Peter doesn't seem to love it, LOL.

Between '98, when BMW stopped importing four cylinder motors into the US, and '12 BMW's built several metric tons of 2.0 liter motors, most are economy motors designed for low-mid range inexpensive commuters, and they make the same HP as the 1.8l m42 and my 1.9l m44 ~143hp. They're designed as decent hp, good torque motors for a relatively heavy (~3000lbs) car.

The only motor that would be interesting would be the N-45 2.0 liter; however, they only made 2600 of these in '06. It's a 173hp motor, even race built it won't match up with an Acura 1.8 at 150-200lbs lighter and making the exact same hp. So, to even get close takes a very limited production homologation special, and then it's still off by a country mile.

Knestis
05-21-2012, 12:49 PM
I'm just a dork but for the life of me, I can't find the "feedback requested" item re: non-USDM engines in ST anywhere... Help?

K

Chip42
05-21-2012, 01:17 PM
letter 7402, under suggested rules for 2013, page 3 of the may fastrack.

Knestis
05-21-2012, 09:01 PM
Thanks, Chip! Letter of support submitted.

http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a434/thegtiman/Typical%2016v%20plots/ABFVWplotvsDDSukhStd1HDigi32plot.jpg

Plot of an actual stock example (blue) compared to the VW factory published output using the DIN std of measurement and correction (red).

Power - Torque - Conditions
VW claims 110kW (150PS) @6000 rpm - 180Nm (133 lbft) @4800 rpm - DIN 70020
Actual 154bhp @ 6300rpm - [email protected] rpm- Dyno Dynamics ATMC2 correction used

K

shwah
05-22-2012, 01:00 PM
Kirk - seems to me that the 1.8 and 2.0 20v motors might have a better shot than the ABF 16v, simply due to a less crappy exhaust side port design. Would need cam development, and still might not ever make it up to asian specific outputs...

Knestis
05-22-2012, 05:50 PM
Could be. I'm starting with what I'm reasonably familiar with (from rallying) but I'd love to get additional info on those options.

K

Mrsideways
05-23-2012, 05:18 PM
If I were doing this fresh, I would probably be looking at the N54 Turbo motor in the newest Z4 (2.0L Turbo).

Rumors I've heard state that this motor is derived from the Peugeot 1.6's currently in all the Mini's. That motor is Not getting a good rep for being reliable. If it's true the new bimmer motor is essentially the same thing it's not going to be good news. Can you confirm it's of the same family?

Greg Amy
06-12-2012, 09:17 AM
From July 2012 Prelim Fastrack:

1. #8268 (Matt Blehm) Support 2013 rule change for non-US engines.
Thank you for your support. This item was presented and approved by the BoD June 1-2, 2012. You should now submit your VTS.


PLEASE NOTE: the STAC does not currently have a procedure in place for reviewing and approving non-North American engines. But I can tell you with much confidence, that you CANNOT provide enough information for your VTS requests. FSMs, specs, expected output, dyno charts, throttle body sizes, manifold part numbers, EVERYTHING the committee may need to consider it and EVERYTHING scrutineering will need to enforce it. This VTS information will be posted publicly for download.

If you send us a request with nothing more than "allow the Honda B32x3s engine" and I assure you it will be replied to with "thank you for your input."

Also note that non-US engine are NOT automatically approved, and are ONLY approved on a case-by-case basis. If your non-US engine is not listed in the alternate engine table, it is not approved for use.

This should be fun...

GA

Matt93SE
06-12-2012, 10:15 AM
Heh.. yeah, it's definitely going to be fun for you guys. I applaud the STAC for taking this on, but hope you're not ready to kill each and every one of us.

I'd like to chat a bit more offline on this regard-- I got a phone call from Eric a few weeks ago and just haven't had time to do anything about it. (Eric, if you're reading, thanks for the call! It wasn't ignored!)
Things are down here for the next few months with no races until September, so I'm going to spend some time on the subject so I can hopefully start getting ready for next year.

Knestis
06-12-2012, 12:40 PM
Interesting indeed!

K

CRallo
06-12-2012, 06:31 PM
Thank you!

Z3_GoCar
06-20-2012, 12:21 AM
Letter #8568... Any questions, just e-mail me, I'll get all the spec's I can. But I'm sure that Eric can also get some of these spec's too.

Knestis
06-22-2012, 11:21 AM
I'm doing outreach to find specs on the VW ABF engine and have a couple of helpful leads. I'm assuming that I need to get PDFs of VAG documentation - as opposed to "I saw on VWVortex that..." kind of "evidence." Is that accurate?

And can I get some guidance re: what the STAC actually needs in terms of the specific specs? If I get everything in the engine section of the current VTS, do you have what you need for approval...?

TIA

K

Greg Amy
06-22-2012, 11:37 AM
I would think those PDFs are a good thing to have.

I suggest the STAC will want every bit of information that may/will affect performance that is NOT "open" to the STCS. For example, we probably don't care what the rods, flywheel, or crankshaft material is, as that's free in ST. We do care about valve sizes, throttle body sizes, and intake manifold (part numbers?). Probably can't hurt to include pertinent cheatable info, like port configuration and sizes, if available.

I think the macro following stuff is mandatory, including but not limited to:

- bore/stroke
- Exh/Int valve sizes
- throttle body size and configuration. If you wish to swap from fly-by-wire, provide detailed info on old and requested TB.
- Crankshaft configuration (not material)
- Fuel injector number and mounting location
- Compression ratio, if above class maximum
- Manufacturer's rated output
- Anything else significant to engine output that is not allowed to be changed by the STCS...

GA

Knestis
06-22-2012, 12:35 PM
Groovy. Thanks!
K

Matt93SE
06-26-2012, 12:35 PM
So, question...

Assume I send in a request for a bone stock SR20DET with factory compression and cams, and it's approved.
Would I be allowed to change compression and cams after approval, within the limits of STU rules just as if I were a USDM engine?

(i.e. My plan is to throw a stock SR in the car for next season while I'm building a better one)

Or would I need to submit an additional VTS for these changes?

If we have to ask for additional VTS stuff every time someone wants to change an engine tune (i.e. camshaft), that's going to make STAC's life a living hell trying to keep up with the changes..

Greg Amy
06-26-2012, 01:07 PM
My inference is the engine will be approved or denied, with very little - if any - further restrictions. So if it goes as inferred, you would be required/allowed to follow all other STU regs.

GA

Knestis
06-26-2012, 02:02 PM
Yike. That's been my operative assumption, Greg. If it's different in practice, I'm not sure how to even think about the problem. My paperwork is just about ready, BTW.

K

Matt93SE
06-26-2012, 03:29 PM
That's good to hear.
I could understand if this were ProRacing where they have a team of engineers to scrutinize every proposed change to an engine and approve or deny line items, but I'm happy to see common sense apply here.

Will be getting paperwork together whenever I have free time. Took a new job a few months ago to try to make life easier, and surprise!! I'm right back to working 60hr weeks on a project that was doomed from the start. :(

Knestis
06-26-2012, 11:07 PM
My letter is in but I have an additional PDF of service manual stuff to send along. You want it, Greg?

K

Greg Amy
06-27-2012, 06:32 AM
Email it to me, I'll get it to the committee. - GA

Knestis
06-27-2012, 07:10 AM
Wilco.

K

webhound
01-01-2013, 02:12 PM
Bump. In my reading of the last GCR that I had downloaded, which iirc was the Nov rev, among the few non-USDM swaps listed, there wasn't a Honda ZC on the list.

I have access to a super-mega cheap JDM ZC swap for my EF Civic, and I'm kicking this around. Is anyone working on this/has a request already been submitted for the JDM Honda ZC motor? If not, I'll start putting a request together. For those that have done it, do I need to submit it on a VTS, or just get it to the STAC in a pdf specs package and cover letter?

Anyone see any barriers to this config getting approved? It's essentially the same architecture as the D16A1, DOHC motor from the first gen USDM Integra, so it's certainly no overdog in this arena. IMO fully built it would still be weak compared to the B16, I'd do it b/c it's cheap and I can use the stock mounts and my current transmission, etc....

Will

Greg Amy
01-01-2013, 03:06 PM
Is anyone working on this/has a request already been submitted for the JDM Honda ZC motor?
The STAC has no requests on this engine.


...do I need to submit it on a VTS, or just get it to the STAC in a pdf specs package and cover letter?
See January 2013 Fastrack.


Anyone see any barriers to this config getting approved?
I know very little about this engine, but as long as its stock output is in line with existing US-spec options, it should get approved.

Do note that even if it is approved, you'll still have to build within the existing STL prep limits. So, for example, if the stock valve lift is more than .425" (10.8mm) you'll have to re-cam it.


...it would still be weak compared to the B16, I'd do it b/c it's cheap and I can use the stock mounts and my current transmission, etc..

Again, I don't know this engine, but why go to the trouble instead of building up a comparable US-spec D-series engine?

GA

webhound
01-01-2013, 03:33 PM
Thanks GA. I'll look at the Jan FT for guidance.

Noted on following STL specs. Best I can tell without measuring, the dohc ZC stock cam lift is around .400-410" lift, so ok there. It's a relatively low comp engine, as was the way back in the early 90s when it was produced, so ok there.

I'd use it simply b/c it will be literally free to me, along with a few spare bits. So assuming it passes approval, it would just cost me paper, vs the albeit very minor cost a sohc USDM motor would cost me. Since most of it's hours would probably see it running hpde and stuff, I'd just use it stock for the beginning, with just a minor top end touch up.

All this is just looking ahead to 2014, I'll run it some in 2013 in ITB trim with the D15 that's in it. Somehow I think ZC or something with a lil power will be more entertaining than the D15 ;), especially goofing off in hpde sessions. The other choice was looking like getting a clapped out and already B16 swapped Civic, and swap that drivetrain into my EF chassis, but a free dohc ZC is, well, free...

Thanks again!

Will

Xian
01-06-2013, 04:38 PM
Greg, the DOHC ZC is basically a higher zoot version of the engine available in the first gen Integra. Want to say the ZC is rated at/around 130hp with decent (for a Honda) torque. I swapped ne into my street CRX years and years ago. It definitely had more power than the stock (but underrated) D16A6. Big advantages for it are that it uses the stock transmission, doesn't require aftermarket engine mounts, and doesn't involve all the VTEC shenanigans that the later D16Z6 engine needs. Parts availability is decent as many of the parts are shared with the early Integra and one of the mid-model Preludes, IIRC.

adamjabaay
01-07-2013, 08:47 AM
I loved my old Dohc zc street car from 10-12 years ago. It was basically as quick as a d16a6. Not much more power

Xian
01-07-2013, 12:31 PM
Curious... were you running the stock ECU? I swapped to an 87/88 Integra ECU, IIRC, and it "felt" m0Ar powerful. 'Cause you know a seat of the pants dyno has never been wrong before... ;)

adamjabaay
01-17-2013, 09:03 AM
I ran an 89 integra Ecu..butt dyno said mad power yo.

...and an chipped/tuned PM6 when I built individual throttle bodies....installed Exospeed cams...and milled the head.

It was a massive undertaking for a 20 year old kid. I didn't know what a wideband o2 sensor was and knocked its way into a bunch of blown headgaskets.

On topic again ....is an OEM/stock JDM b16 approved for STL yet? Its being talked about by tom91ita and myself

Greg Amy
01-17-2013, 09:26 AM
...is an OEM/stock JDM b16 approved for STL yet? Its being talked about by tom91ita and myself
Nope. Has not been requested.

What's different about it versus the US-market engine?

GA

Xian
01-17-2013, 04:27 PM
Hi Greg,

I did a little looking around on the web to refresh my memory and it all matches up pretty well to what I expected to find. The USDM B16A2/3 that was available in the Del Sol VTEC and the 99/00 Civic Si is pretty damn close to the "early" JDM B16A (offered in the 88-91 Civic/CRXen)... same output # (160hp, 112tq), same compression, bore/stroke, etc. I'd imagine that there are sensor differences since the "early" JDM engine was OBD0 vs the USDM ones being OBD1/2. This engine came mated to a cable tranny that will work easily with the 88-91 Civic/CRXen vs. the USDM hydraulic tranny that takes a cable-->hydro conversion.

Apparently the "later" JDM B16A offered in the 92-95 Civic got a power bump to 170hp with a slight bump up to 116tq. This engine had higher compression (10.4 vs. 10.2) and revised camshafts. No idea what, specifically, was revised with them. Not sure but I'd suspect that this engine was OBD1 like the early US spec stuff was?

There was also the B16B offered in Japan for the even yet later Civic Type R. This was a high zoot engine and, if I'm honest, I don't think that STL would benefit by including it into the ruleset. They've always been tough to find and fairly pricey. I just don't see a big advantage to letting them in. The other JDM B16 engines though would be a potential boon to anyone looking to build out an EF/EG *or* looking to run the smaller displacement engine in a DA/DC Integra. They're pretty damn cheap and there have been a ton of them imported and stuffed into donor cars...

Edit & PS:
What about the tranny legality? Would there need to be a review/spec process for that as well? For the cable tranny, it look like the 1-4th ratios are a touch longer than the USDM tranny while 5th is a little shorter. The hydro tranny uses the same gearing as the USDM.

Greg Amy
01-17-2013, 05:49 PM
Apparently the "later" JDM B16A offered in the 92-95 Civic got a power bump to 170hp with a slight bump up to 116tq. This engine had higher compression (10.4 vs. 10.2) and revised camshafts. No idea what, specifically, was revised with them.
Sounds like it's already compliant to the regs to me. I'm betting that all the bits n pieces are the same general bits as the USDM one, so grind off the "B16A" off the block and ensure all the parts meets the US-specs and the STL limits (e.g. 11:1 compression, .425 lift valves).

Remember, STx has the "alternate parts source language just like IT. So if the parts are the same, we don't care about the source. The only time this becomes an issue is if the JDM version has something special like crankshaft/weights/etc.


There was also the B16B offered in Japan for the even yet later Civic Type R. This was a high zoot engine and, if I'm honest, I don't think that STL would benefit by including it into the ruleset.I concur. I was looking into the history of that engine some time back and was VERY impressed with it, all while being really pissed we never got something like that here in the States. I've often given thought to replicating one of those cars, just for fun...white with ITR wheels, please.


What about the tranny legality?Either the original transmission or an alternate transmission must be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same manufacturer as the vehicle (i.e., an Acura transmission may be installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in their entirety; any OEM gear sets that fit w/o any modifications to gears, shafts, and/or case are permitted.

Nothing in the regs limiting transaxles to US-market...

- GA

Edit: As I understand it, and very generally speaking, JDM engines were classified as B16A, without the number. US market engines got the number, such as B16A1/B16A2. If all the important bit are all the same (such as the intake manifold, throttle body, crankshaft and case, head casting, etc) then there's no need to request JDM/EDM approval. The parts are, functionally, all the same. The only time you need to be concerned is when the engine may have some desired equipment that was not delivered on the US engine and does not comply to the STL regs (e.g., bigger intake, larger throttle body, different-weighted crank, etc).

Knestis
01-17-2013, 06:02 PM
... Either the original transmission or an alternate transmission must be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same manufacturer as the vehicle (i.e., an Acura transmission may be installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in their entirety; any OEM gear sets that fit w/o any modifications to gears, shafts, and/or case are permitted.

Nothing in the regs limiting transaxles to US-market...



Ro, rearrry...?? Ruh-roh, Rastro!

K

Greg Amy
01-17-2013, 06:08 PM
I don't think that is necessarily an oversight. I can inquire if it's intentional before someone invests the coin.

I personally don't have an issue with it. Unlike variability in engine outputs, there's lesser variability in transmissions/transaxles. Gear ratios are free already (using factory gearsets); I think of you can find a suitable 6-speed to replace that US-spec 5-spped, go for it. Just remember that there's only so much modding you're allowed to do to make it fit ("if it doesn't say you can...") and "...must not relocate the engine or transmission in any direction."

Is the Prof thinking Euro 6-speed now? - GA

Knestis
01-17-2013, 06:47 PM
The homologation rules have varied over the years but FIA Group 2, 4, A, and N have variously required that certain numbers of a particular specification of a car be produced to be eligible. That means some gearboxes with pretty special ratios have, at some point or another, been offered for sale in those homologation specials (albeit not quite off of dealers' showroom floors) - in places "not in the US."

K

Xian
01-17-2013, 10:39 PM
Interesting... all makes complete sense but is just different from where me head is coming from IT. I think the inclusion of this engine should help encourage more folks to build the EF chassis for the class
I know it's top of the list for me right now if I ever make a return to car ownership.

Question on the gearset thing... Is the intent that a gearset be a complete "set" of gears or that a gearset refer to a *single* OE gear. i.e. can one mix and match gears for a best of breed tranny ratio or does it need to remain a complete internal assembly of 1-5?

Greg Amy
01-17-2013, 10:45 PM
The intent is that you can take any pairs of gears and mix-n-match into whatever box they'll fit into, assuming no mods to make it fit. so you can take the first gear from the CRX and the second from the ITR, and the third from the Integra, ad nauseum....we talked about the verbiage and decided that "sets" made more sense than "pairs"; if you can think of a better way to word it, please suggest...

Key philosophical basis: bolt in and it's OK. Gotta start machining parts/shafts/case to make it fit? No bueno.

- GA

Greg Amy
01-17-2013, 10:53 PM
Prof, not too worried about your scenario. yes, it could be significant, but in the end it's on the far end of the Bell curve...and being National racing, we all know what happens on the far end of the Bell curve...

- GA

adamjabaay
01-17-2013, 11:13 PM
I really shouldn't have read this thread.


Ha

Chip42
01-18-2013, 02:12 AM
I always read "Retrofitting OEM complete gear sets in an alternate transmission case is permitted (9.1.4.3.E.3)" as all of the gears from one box into another, presumably for fitment purposes. mix n match opens bigger doors. good / bad is debatable.

that said -
if anyone is considering a D series, go out and dig up HF or 4spds boxes and those from ZCs because they combine with Si boxes to have the gears you'll want for a close ratio 5spd.

Toyota C boxes will be fun... something like 28 years and MANY models running this family, with a lot of part interchangeability.

I'm betting there are more than a few VW combos available, too.

I'm with adam... shouldn't have read.

Greg Amy
01-18-2013, 08:08 AM
I always read "Retrofitting OEM complete gear sets in an alternate transmission case is permitted (9.1.4.3.E.3)" as all of the gears from one box into another, presumably for fitment purposes.
Need to keep up with the latest regs, Chip...we changed it to remove that "complete" from "gear sets"...you can now mix n match gears. That was intentional.

- GA

webhound
01-18-2013, 09:32 AM
I'm with adam... shouldn't have read.

Count me in.

Xian
01-18-2013, 11:33 AM
The intent is that you can take any pairs of gears and mix-n-match into whatever box they'll fit into, assuming no mods to make it fit. so you can take the first gear from the CRX and the second from the ITR, and the third from the Integra, ad nauseum....we talked about the verbiage and decided that "sets" made more sense than "pairs"; if you can think of a better way to word it, please suggest...

Key philosophical basis: bolt in and it's OK. Gotta start machining parts/shafts/case to make it fit? No bueno.

- GA

Cool. The current wording makes more sense understanding that the word "complete" was removed intentially.

I don't know nearly enough about the boxes and gear ratios offered to say anything more than "interesting". There's certainly some room there to maximize the specific ratio choices with FD and tire package. With data aq being as cheap as it is, this shouldn't be too tough for anyone serious about STL.

Just occured to me, one potential limiting factor for folks will be whether they can get legit documentation that their ratio choices are, in fact, factory pieces. Let's say that VW did offer some super awesome homologation special in Europe. Are you going to be able to get documentation to support the specific ratios offered? I dunno (seriously, I don't) but I imagine that this could be a stumbling block for some parts/options.

PS
I'm sure Bone could whip together an awesome D-series box and have some great ideas for a B-series box.

Xian
01-18-2013, 11:33 AM
I really shouldn't have read this thread.


Ha


Count me in.

You're all welcome? :happy204: :p

webhound
01-18-2013, 11:45 AM
You're all welcome? :happy204: :p

eff you


Cool. The current wording makes more sense understanding that the word "complete" was removed intentially.

I don't know nearly enough about the boxes and gear ratios offered to say anything more than "interesting". There's certainly some room there to maximize the specific ratio choices with FD and tire package. With data aq being as cheap as it is, this shouldn't be too tough for anyone serious about STL.

Just occured to me, one potential limiting factor for folks will be whether they can get legit documentation that their ratio choices are, in fact, factory pieces. Let's say that VW did offer some super awesome homologation special in Europe. Are you going to be able to get documentation to support the specific ratios offered? I dunno (seriously, I don't) but I imagine that this could be a stumbling block for some parts/options.

PS
I'm sure Bone could whip together an awesome D-series box and have some great ideas for a B-series box.

Even just a JDM ZC box is different enough than the USDM to be....different. Am I wrong to expect some substantial track dependence on how one set works vs another?

I do know, however, that my 5 speed set (ITB ) will work a LOT better than the 4 speed (ITC) box in my EF hatch. Everywhurrr.

Will

Knestis
01-18-2013, 12:15 PM
Need to keep up with the latest regs, Chip...we changed it to remove that "complete" from "gear sets"...you can now mix n match gears. That was intentional.

- GA

Oh, crap - I missed that, too. That changes things, and does indeed remove my previous concern re: euro 'boxes.

Kirk (who's now distracted by STL again)

EDIT - The homologation special options will still have some clout. Take a look at http://www.scirocco.org/gears/ and scroll down to "VW Motorsport." Bwah, hah, haaaah!

Xian
01-18-2013, 12:42 PM
eff you

:023:




Even just a JDM ZC box is different enough than the USDM to be....different. Am I wrong to expect some substantial track dependence on how one set works vs another?

I do know, however, that my 5 speed set (ITB ) will work a LOT better than the 4 speed (ITC) box in my EF hatch. Everywhurrr.

Will

I don't know that I'd say "substantial" and, if I'm honest, I'd expect there to be potentially less track dependency than a FD can play in IT. I suspect that with the ability to tweak all the ratios, you can find a compromise gearbox that's good everywhere. The "gold" setup in my mind would be a 2-5 gear cluster that, with the right FD, keeps the engine inside it's optimum powerband everywhere on track. You may still end up with an outlier track that necessitates a different FD for optimum performance or different 2-5 gearing (i.e. Daytona) but for most people I think one tranny should be just fine. And, again, this is no different than IT where a CRX+4.7 works perfect at Daytona but you want a 4.9 for Road Atlanta and many other SE tracks.

Rabbit07
01-18-2013, 07:04 PM
Kirk (who's now distracted by STL again)



It's working......mad scientist laugh!.........