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)
Printable View
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??Quote:
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
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:
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.
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.
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/e30m3per...-1/chart-4.htm
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:
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...
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....
Honestly there isn't much to gain for Honda's going the JDM/EDM route outside of availability and cheaper prices for long blocks.
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) (Eö=40, Es=48 (@ 2mm lift) )
* Exhaust cam = 304 degrees (spread: 98) (Aö=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)
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...
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
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkeane http://www.roadraceautox.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
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 Nissan’s, Toyota’s, Subaru’s 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
letter 7402, under suggested rules for 2013, page 3 of the may fastrack.
Thanks, Chip! Letter of support submitted.
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/...Digi32plot.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 - 138lbft@4300 rpm- Dyno Dynamics ATMC2 correction used
K
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...
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
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?
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
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.
Interesting indeed!
K
Thank you!
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.
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
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
Groovy. Thanks!
K
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..
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