I'll keep you posted, but I get first bite on that one... ;)
Printable View
What's $2K in tow gas? please... (NOT!) If so, just hope you are the only guy in your region out east that tows out and your region has a tow fund!
K,
there may be several competitive NASA Honda Challenge H2 honda swaps in California. I think H2 with engine swaps might be decent in STL.
You might check out some of the NASA forums.
Tom
Just guessing here, I would imagine that many HC cars in H1 and H2 have JDM swaps.
Likely. However the component parts are typically the same as USDM engines expect for cams and pistons. If that were the case, and assuming the cams are within STL specs, I contend the engines are compliant to the regs due to the "aftermarket source" reg and specific JDM approval is not required.
I've gotten into spirited debates with folks over this interpretation. Many contend that since the engine has "B16A" (or whatever JDM designation) stamped on it, that automatically makes it non-compliant. I disagree. The reg states something like parts must be "the exact equivalent of the original parts". However if we can obtain parts from, say, NAPA and use those, are you going to argue that the NAPA parts are not compliant because they may have different part numbers cast into, or stamped on, them? In my mind, if the parts are dimensionally and metallurgical the same between the USDM and JDM engines, and no component exceeds either OE or STL-allowed specs, then it's compliant to the STCS.
If having that "B16A" stamped on the block bothers your competition, then just grind it off.
- GA, inviting people to read his signature at the bottom...
Aren't JDM engines specifically disallowed except for specific line-item inclusion?
While I understand your position, and tend to agree with the fact that the resultant unit would be compliant, it would seem that starting with a non-USDM core is not allowed specifically by the rules and any 'core' without proof of USDM origin would be technically illegal.
Maybe a rules re-write is in order?
I guess I am thinking more along the lines that if the "A" of B16A bothers the competition then that is a reason to add one to the "B16"
Nope. Alternate parts are allowed per the regs, as long as they're the same part (dimensions and materials). As long as the specs are the same, the parts are allowed.
If you disassemble both a USDM and a JDM engine, spread the parts all across the tech shed floor and compare them, and find that they're all exactly the same part, yet the only difference is one is stamped "A" and one is stamped "B", then - as per Roffe Corollary - "if it says you can, then you bloody well can!" And if you counter that the stamps and casting marks and ink spots and everything else has to match on allowed replacement parts, then I'd counter the regulation is completely pointless, because were a supplier to attempt to sell parts with all the same casting marks and stamps and ink spots they'd get sued by the OE manufacturer.
The reg is clear: the parts must meet "dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer".
These do. They're compliant.
And, before this board gets all high and mighty about it, maybe it should look inward to find out where that reg came from...and where else its interpretations may apply...?
- GA
P.S. Here's the reg:
"Same old axe. Replaced the handle twice and the head once, but it's still the same ole axe."Quote:
Replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer, unless otherwise allowed in the Super Touring category or class rules.
... having flashbacks... of prior... threads on UDSM vs non-USDM...
https://improvedtouring.com...ht=USDM&page=3
https://improvedtouring.com...&highlight=JDM
https://improvedtouring.com...&highlight=JDM
https://improvedtouring.com...highlight=USDM
... enjoy this long, boring, non-racing (a few exceptions) weekend.
Give me the Cliff's Notes version...I'm busy drinking beer.
It's always been my contention that extra-US-market engine are compliant as basis for IT/ST builds as long as the components used are exactly the same as the US-spec car. This goes back to the early 2000s when someone (honestly, not me or "a friend") wanted to use a JDM SR20DE as a basis to build an ITA engine. In my opinion, it was legal to use a JDM SR20DE to build an ITA engine, as long as everything that ended up in the final assembly was the same - dimensionally and metallurgically - as the US SR20DE.
Same applies to STL. If someone wants to run, for example, a B16A (versus a US-spec B16A2) in STL in their Civic, I say it's compliant as long as the compression ratio is below 11:1 and the total valve lift is within .425" (dunno if it is). I know the B16A has different pistons and cams, but the compression ratio is within 11:1. And pistons and rods (and cams) are free (within prep limits.)
Now, if someone installs a JDM B16A engine with some wild-ass intake manifold and throttle body that was never installed in the US and tosses that into the car? Not compliant. Parts are decisively not what was installed in a US-spec car.
Otherwise, in the end, it really is the same thing, except for what the Shinto eunich ex-Ninja monk stamps on the block as it passed by on the production line. Compliant to the alternate parts letter, and compliant to the alternate parts spirit.
- GA
And there you have the rub, because:
e. It is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body from either the chassis or the installed engine.
1. Regardless of the intake chosen, the total number of throttle bodies must remain the same as the installed engine.
and:
2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air throttling device (e.g., throttle body, carburetor) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise.
If you install the JDM motor then you have to install the JDM ITB manifold, which as you point out isn't allowed as the JDM is a non-USDM item.
No.
Because in Greg's example the "installed engine" is an OE, US-spec engine. The PARTS of that engine may be from the original sold-in-'merica car, the Honda dealer, the local Pep Boys, or from his eunuch friends on Mount Fuji - as long as they are all of the spec designated for the stock car OR within requirements where allowances are provided by the rules.
K
I see and understand the logic. However I also see an specific requirement for the engine to be as delivered for the USDM. The rules seem to be at odds with each other.
'You can't use anything but a USDM engine'
'You can use any part from any world market so long as it's exactly like the USDM version'
I don't see this as good rule writing.
Can't you just say, 'Only USDM engine may be used or their exact equivalents from other DM's'?
Good stuff. I see both sides - and when you do, I think a clarification is in order.
It's not any different than the equivalent part allowance in IT, is it...?
K
But, you're not installing the US-spec engine, you're installing the JDM-spec engine and calling it the same as the USDM plus allowed modifications. To do this you have to violate the stock intake manifold rule, because the JDM and USDM manifolds aren't the same. It seems pretty clear to me, you need to specifically allow the JDM motor or remove the intake manifold/throttle body number rules to make this legal.
the point of the USDM only engine rule is compliance enforcement and staying away from small run homologation specials which we colonists rarely get.
a USDM/STL spec B16A is no different than the same B16A2 or A3 REGARDLESS of the stamping on the block. that's all it is, stamping.
a JDM B16B, however, is verboten unless specifically allowed by the CRB/STAC and added in the allowance table in the GCR. same would be true of some odd JDM intake as in tGA's example. the installed engine is the engine you say it is. "This is a B16A2" means so long as it matches that description in ALL relevant ways, you're good. it could say B18C5 on the block and you could STILL be compliant (to use a USDM part swap reference)
and As far as I can see - the same IS allowed in IT. foreign sourced blocks no different than a USDM one match the letter of the rule.
happy Turkey day everyone - I'll be racing this weekend, in a way underbuilt MR2 on street tires having fun and getting passed.
Yup, what Kirk and Chip said. No regs clarification needed.
How about "exactly the same"? I stole it from the ITCS and changed the word "Improved" to "Super"... ;)
Edit: James, just to clarify: I'm not saying you can use the intake from a JDM engine to build an STL engine, I'm saying you can use the parts from the JDM engine to build a compliant STL engine as long as the parts are exactly the same. Axe/Handle/same axe.
Happy Turkey Day!
- GA
You're not listening.
I used a bunch of parts from all over the world, all of which are per the OE US market spec, and I ended up with a OW US market spec engine.
I. Did. Not. Use. Non-US. Spec. Parts.
Set free the assumption that an "engine" is one part. It's a lot of parts.
K
Happy Turkey Day: Greg, Chip, Kirk, Andy, and anyone else who might be lurking this thread
So you're inclusive of Frankenstein type motor builds, as long as the net parts are equivalent to a USDM target. When you mix and match parts, what's the motors original intake manifold and throttle body? And how do you spec and control this? Net-Net, we end up down the same garden path the Mazdaspeed turbo allowance took us.
>> So you're inclusive of Frankenstein type motor builds, as long as the net parts are equivalent to a USDM target.
Eggs-actly.
"Original" is defined by what came in the car, not the lump from which any parts were sourced. There's no allowance that I can run the JDM (or whatever exotic) intake manifold and throttle body, so I can't.
If my Frankenstein looks just like Bob from the block, and is made of the same parts as him, it's still just ol' Bobby - not some monster.
K
Not frankensteins, just a part from here and a part from there that happen to be the same in every way as the part you need for the specified engine. you can't take a B16A3 head and a B18B3 intake and call it compliant to anything. they never came in that config. but to my knowledge, the B18C/B17/B16 are all the same blocks. the ASSEMBLY is stamped as whatever it was, but that doesn't make the shared parts unique.
yeah, you might have some 'splainin to do if you call your car a 1600 and there's the block from an 1800 in there, but measure the stroke and come out B16 spec and you're fine, IMHO.
the mazda turbo thing was pretty sneaky - the alternate MSP part was allowed as an alternate replacement for the MSM and not well vetted by the rulemakers when approved. but it was SPECIFICALLY approved, then rescinded. alternate parts that match OEM are allowed by the category rules and do not need a line item, nor does using them open a box labeled "Pandora, keep closed."
legality is an enforcement via measurement and material issue, not a stamping one.
happy 4th thursday in November to my Can"eh"dian friends.
Too close for roasting, Goose. I'm switching to sandwiches!
K
From Carmina Burana:
Olium Lacus Colueram
The English translation goes something like:
Once I had dwelt on lakes, once I had been beautiful, when I was a swan. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted!
The cook turns me back and forth; I am roasted to a turn on my pyre; now the waiter serves me. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted! Now I lie on the dish, and I cannot fly; I see the gnashing teeth. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted!
Better make that a Veggie sandwich, maybe with Hummis :D
Ummm, that was very bizarre.
Gregs right.
Jakes Motor Blocks makes engines.
He makes a B26A.
It's just like a Honda B16A that everybody runs, but, he want's to make sales, so he charges less.
Would that be legal?
Damn straight it would.
If HONDA made it, would it then suddenly become ILLEGAL?
Of course not.
And if they lableled it B16, and to keep track of production numbers and warrantees and crap, they sold that one, labeled B16, but the same in every other way, only in Japan, would it now be suddenly illegal?
Of course not.
Now, if that engine uses a sooper flowy intake but only in Japan, does that mean the intake is legal because that labeled block came with those parts?
Of course not.
It's really very simple.
First off, let me say that I'm with Andy on this one. I agree w/ Greg/Kirk/Chip on the interpretation, but the wording of the rule could be better.
As far as the quote above, when I read through it the first few times, I thought "Yeah, that doesn't allow the JDM motor". But after the 5th or 6th reading, it occurred to me that the "unless noted otherwise" clause is covered by "it is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body from either the chassis or the installed engine". Otherwise, 2. would invalidate e., even if you were talking about all USDM stuff.
Hope everyone had a great holiday!
Final thoughts:
IT rules state that they are to be 'models' offered in the US and must be prepared to the MFG spec unless an authorization is given in the rules. Then they go on to deal with replacement parts and what is ok...properly circling back.
ST rules say that non-USDM engines are illegal. It's a core principle of the rules which one then has to assume is overridden by the 'exact replacement' clause regardless of origin. The confusion is created when you say something is expressly illegal and then you can override that. That isn't how the IT rules work, actually the 'no legal modification may perform an expressly illegal function' wording in the IT rules makes it different in my mind.
BUT...I agree that you can run through the wording and get to a 'legal' JDM block but I certainly don't think it's clear enough. Maybe something like 'USDM engine assemblies or their exact equivalent' would be better. Maybe not.
It seems simple. Except you need to add a rule:
Jake's Motor Blocks are specifically ILLEGAL per the rules.
There is a reason that JMB are illegal, most of them are not the US spec that is required.
But some of them are exactly the same at the US versions that are legal.
Are those now legal? ESPECIALLY if they have stampings that say they are JMB's, which are indeed specifically illegal
Do we need people to have to know JDM or NUSDM specs?
I, and the company I own and represent are INSULTED by your shameful slur, sir!
Why are my blocks illegal?? The specific blocks in question are exact clones of the blocks that Honda sells, services and installs as replacements in the car that are approved and raced in STL.
By side company, Jakes Brake Discs has been supplying most of the field with my identical, but made with Polynesian and African labor, so that i can sell for lower prices....and nobody has any issues with their legality.
I fail to see the difference.
The fact that I am selling the exact same blocks to the guys who run in the JPL class of the SCCJ (Sports Car Club of Japan) where the rules state that original equipment blocks must be used shouldn't enter into your thought process.
My blocks meet the exact replacement rules, and my part numbers have no bearing on anything, nor should the other markets that they are used in.
If somebody feels the replacement parts I make are indeed not exact copies of the proper part, then they should determine the difference and protest me.
But there's a rule that specifically states that your engines are illegal. That's what the paper will refer to. If you want them to be allowed, I think it would be incumbent on you to get the rule changed the expressly prohibits them.
Seriously, I think that if they're dimensionally and metallurgicaly the same, they should be allowed. But outlawing JDM engines was the EASY button.
The question comes down to the definition of engine. Is it the block or is it just a collection of specifications?
Ahhh but they aren't exact clones. They are cast with the JMB logo and serial number easily identifying them as specifically illegal from the get go. Spec for spec notwithstanding, the rule specifically calls your product out as illegal.
Jake's Brake Discs however flourishes. Why? No specific rule disallowing them exists in the rulebook and they are exact replacement parts.
In all seriousness, saying something is explicitly illegal as one of the core rules and then hinting that it could be legal later on isn't a great rule. There is a huge difference in the IT and ST rules here. IT talks about specs and equivalency, while the ST rules say no right up front and then allow exact substitutions...but really not the original. It's specific in that regard.
There is a better rule to be written here and it's not because the original rule was bad, but because the class continues to evolve as to what is acceptable and what isn't IMO.
No it does not, Andy. The reg states:
It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer...
...which has a clear Roffe Corollary implication that as long as the parts meet dimensional and material specifications as the original, they are compliant, to both ITCS and STCS. Nowhere in the regs are these parts limited to exact logo and inking equivalents; if they were, then why specifically call out material and dimensions?
Remember, "if it says you can, then you bloody well can!"
And, as I noted before, it is clearly against most copyright and patent law for any aftermarket parts manufacturer to produce a part that uses the exact same markings, logos, etc as the OE manufacturer; it is impossible for any aftermarket manufacturer to legally produce parts in that manner. There is not one aftermarket part in the world that would meet that requirement.
By arguing otherwise, Andy, you are attempting to change the intent of the aftermarket parts allowance and/or make it completely impossible to comply. The allowance would become moot.
No there's not, Andy; they're exactly the same. Same IIDSYCTYC philosophy, same exact "you can only use cars and engines from the US market". The only difference is that STL allows the opportunity for non-US engine designs from other markets to be specifically approved.Quote:
There is a huge difference in the IT and ST rules here.
But we're not talking engine designs here, Andy; we talking individual component parts, whose source is unregulated (insert George comment here...)
And in the end, if the individual parts from a JDM/EDM engine are completely indistinguishable from those in a USDM engine, why would anybody care where they came from? How does this is even come close to violating either the spirit of the letter of the regs?
Finally, I'm further offering that my position allows use of JDM/EDM engines as parts sources in Improved Touring as well (I've done it, and I've explained to others how they can do it while staying compliant to the ITCS)
So this discussion has absolutely nothing to do - zilch, zero, nothing, nada! -with the STCS's JDM engine allowance.
Nope, no rule re-write needed - and none will be pursued - simply because your position is based on faulty logic and mis-reading of the intent of the regs.Quote:
There is a better rule to be written here...
There is nothing here to "fix".
"Thank you for your input."
Again, we're not talking engine assemblies. I think that's where you're getting all hung up. We're talking individual component parts, the sources of which are unregulated, as long as they're identical in dimensions and materials.
And...they are. Same exact parts.
- GA
Well we will agree to disagree. IT rules says US chassis and US specifications. ST rules state no JDM engines allowed unless seen on a spec line. There is a difference there. And to add a rule later that allows exact replacements is great and all but flies in the face of the core rule...that does NOT exist in IT land.
Again, I see the argument and I can draw the line to legality. But I also can see how it is viewed the other way...and to me that's a bad rule.
You can only use that red stick from the US.
You can not use any red stick from the 'non-US'.
You can use a different red stick as long as it's the exact same as the red stick from the US.
The red stick I found was a 'non-US' red stick but is exactly the same as my US red stick except that it is definitely the 'non-US' version you told me I couldn't use.
So my new red stick is exactly the same as my old red stick an should be legal, so why say I can't use it in the beginning?
Still feel like there is better wording to be had. But trust me, I hear the thought process and I would tell anyone the line of thinking to get to a legal spot.
We will agree to disagree.
Hazy definitions. It's only a JDM engine IF it's unique to that market. otherwise you are outlawing a label. Why then ONLY outlaw Honda labels? Why are all OTHER labels ok??
I can see that a clarification could make this easy. But, as it stands, I'd say identical trumps a label.
I dunno, why specifically call them out as illegal?Quote:
Hazy definitions. It's only a JDM engine IF it's unique to that market. otherwise you are outlawing a label. Why then ONLY outlaw Honda labels? Why are all OTHER labels ok??
Obama just past sanctions on all Jake's products. It's moot. :)
and people say the SCCA is too officious...