Where to you locate an alternate engine?

I have a question that I don't see addressed in the ST rules and I don't recall having been discussed in the forum. If you install an alternate engine, where can it be located in the engine compartment? Other than the paragraph in STO regarding engine setbacks for certain engines, it's addressed in only one place that I see - the allowance for FWD engines in RWD cars to locate the long block anywhere in the engine compartment, plus allowing firewall modifications to clear accessories.

But for all other engine swaps - nothing at all. So, if I swap one RWD engine for another, where can I put it? I can see at least two interpretations - 1) The "Roffe corollary" version - if you can swap engines, you can bloody well swap engines, i.e., put it any where it will fit. All engine swaps allow this and the FWD-to-RWD language above is just an additional allowance to also modify the firewall to clear FWD-oriented accessories. 2) There's nothing allowing you to move the engine, so it has to be in the stock location. But with a non-stock engine, what is "stock location"? The two normal definitions of stock location relate to either number one plug location or bellhousing/engine interface location. But with a non stock engine and/or transmission, what do these mean? If you swap a six into a four cylinder only car or vice versa, the distance from no. 1 plug to interface is different (and on a four to straight six swap, by maybe six inches). Do you move the engine to keep stock trans location, move the trans to keep the no.1 plug location, or what? And once you add an aftermarket trans, then what?

I seem to recall that at one time there was language requiring "stock location", but it's not there now (if it ever was). My reading would go with the first interpretation, because the "stock location" reading would need to have a definition of "stock location" to make any sense, for the reasons noted. If stock location was intended, I assume that the rule writers would have addressed what stock location means for non-stock parts. But I know what trouble assuming will get you into.

The only problem I can see with the liberal reading is that it would allow engine swappers to move their engines back as far as possible, while cars with stock engine and trans have no basis in the rules for doing so, and thus couldn't move theirs back at all. On the other hand, the rules already specifically allow maximum setback for FWD-to-RWD engine swaps. Why should they be the only ones to get that advantage over all other engine swaps?

So could someone enlighten me as what the rules are intended to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomL

If you install an alternate engine, where can it be located in the engine compartment?

---

It's an item on the committee's agenda. Feel free to offer debate/discussions/suggestions here.

GA

Well, Ill put in a vote for allowing the same rule for all engine swaps as you have already allowed for FWD-to-RWD swaps, except maybe for the "modify the firewall" allowance. If you're going to allow "latitude" in engine swaps, as discussed in the Intent section, you have to include some specific parameters. Otherwise, it all comes down to each individual's opinion of what is reasonable.

With the large number of variations that are possible with the allowed engines, there is no way that a "stock location" based rule (however defined) is going to cover all the possible engine swaps, or at least not without resulting in some unworkable engine positioning (e.g., 4-to-straight 6 swaps, or vice versa). Allowing "anything that fits in the unmodified engine compartment" is easily defined and enforceable. Plus it give maximum flexibility for fitting unusual combinations. And since you've already allowed it for FWD-to-RWD swaps, I see no rational basis for not also allowing it for all engine swaps.

Since this would usually allow swapped engines to sit further back that than the location of the stock engine, the remaining issue is whether stock engines should also be allowed to take advantage of the "anywhere in the engine compartment" language. I have no opinion on that - it's a form of rules creep to allow it, but a disadvantage stock engines to not allow it.

In addition to the fore-aft location issue, what is the rule going to be on engine height? Same problem as with fore-aft - the presumption is stock height, but with engine swaps, what does that mean? Again, I don't see a good solution for engine swaps other than "whatever fits". However, I think that allowing free heights for stock engines could be a serious rule creep issue. With dry sumps allowed, and free engine height, it may effectively require (expensive) dry sumps solely for the purpose of reducing CG height. It depends on how much you could drop the engine due to bell housing clearance, but if you could drop your engine three inches by going to a dry sump, would you feel the need to do so?

Excellant point Tom. Let me interject with my swapped motor experience. My alternate motor accomplishes two things, it gets me a better intake manifold that didn't come with the generation of motors in the Z3. Also, I get a smaller motor so we don't have to weigh over 3k lbs. My alternate motor has the same bosses and transmission as my current motor, so it sits in exactly the same spot as the stock motor, bolted to the original ZF transmission when that motor came with a weaker Getrag from the factory. If I were to swap in a four cylinder, I'd place the motor in the exact same spot the four cylinder motors sat in the four cylinder version, and it too could be bolted to a ZF transmission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomL

In addition to the fore-aft location issue, what is the rule going to be on engine height? Same problem as with fore-aft - the presumption is stock height, but with engine swaps, what does that mean? Again, I don't see a good solution for engine swaps other than "whatever fits". However, I think that allowing free heights for stock engines could be a serious rule creep issue. With dry sumps allowed, and free engine height, it may effectively require (expensive) dry sumps solely for the purpose of reducing CG height. It depends on how much you could drop the engine due to bell housing clearance, but if you could drop your engine three inches by going to a dry sump, would you feel the need to do so?

---

I agree there's a conondrum here. how to put all these worms back into the can?

One thing to think about though is that we have to keep stock ring gear diameter. That's going to be the engine lowering limit for most any car I can think of, as my trans bellhousing is within an inch or so of the bottom of my oil pan.
Also, I can't drop the engine but maybe an inch without cutting the crossmember and removing/relocating the steering rack before the bottom of the block/crank weights start banging into stuff.

That may not be a problem in other cars, but it's certainly an issue in mine.

this one one of the issues I raised in my omnibus letter a long while back (right around the time tGA joined the STAC). at the time, I don't think there was language allowing FWD wngine into RWD cars to be put "wherever" or however that language reads now, but there are some simple rules that would reign this mess in pretty easily.

1 - determine IF the intent of the rules allows (or should allow) for stock engines to be lowered, set back, or rotated about the crank centerline (especially applicable to FWD).

2 - require some specific measurements - 1:installed engine's stock angular orientation about the crank centerline (referencing Cyl #1 bore centerline vs vertical) and 2: for transverse applications: installed engine's crank/bellhousing interface plane position relative to vehicle centerline as delivered in the doner car.

3 - as the baseline, use stock or installed engine's angular orientation and stock bellhousing interface position from vehicle centerline, or the chassis' stock bellhousing plane for any installed engine (stock or swap) in longitudinal applications.

based on the answer to the above questions, set the limits/tolerances from stock. allow or disallow certain modifications, such as cross member modification / replecement as mentioned by Matt. this could make some chassis automatically better than others, so is worth considering with point 1. consider allowing transvere installations a greater angular orientation freedom in exhange for longitudinal setups getting a verical allowance as both will help driveline orientation.

pretty easy set of rules, just needs to be codified. cart's way ahead of the horse already.

Some interesting thoughts, Chip. I'll have to go look up your old letter (you wouldn't know that number, would you?)

But as a scrutineer, I see a big hole in the logic: how do you determine "stock" location? Angular orientation? None of this is documented in the factory shop manuals. What's the chances of finding a stock example of whatever car you're inspecting at the time (and not risk it being a ringer brought in by the same team)? As a competitor, I'd have my $25 appeal form already pre-filled out the moment they start to do the "stock location" measurements. And I'm pretty sure the competitor would win.

I'm personally leaning toward the "within the engine compartment" or something along the same lines. The category already has a fairly large set of engine allowances, and something like that is far easier to scrutineer. But on the other hand, what could someone do such an open reg? Would anything they do be a significant change? If so, do we care? I'd really like to brainstorm the extremes of what could be done if given a big open hole like that to drive through.

Remember, any reg we create must be able to be objectively measured against a known standard, by person of reasonable - but not extreme - technical talent.

GA

original angular orientation and the bellhousing plane can be part of the VTS requirements. for most engines this will be easy, as they are just revisions or other permutations of a engine series/family that WAS sold in the USA - M10/M40/M50/etc series BMWs, Nissan-VEs and -DETs, 20v and 1JZ toyotas, honda stuff (usually just differently stamped versions of what we already have here with slight differences that are already allowed or made irrelevant in ST rules), etc... when bolted into a chassis that accepted that engine family as stock, there is plenty of data to point to.

measure with the head off, as the car sits, referencing a cylinder wall. make the tolerance enough to allow for some rake in the chassis, and make it clear that the (seemingly large?)tolerance is there for that reason.

bellhousing centerline should be able to be reaosnably acertained from any body shop manual for the doner car. again, make it part of the classification requirements.

make a specific year range and model of car(s) part of the alternative engine allowance. so you can say (years) toyota Levin (AE110) "black top" 20V 4A-GE with 6 spd trans (C-something) has 5° slant and the bellhousing plane is 2
left of center. (those numbers are complete POOMA and used for example only)

BTW, are shift linkage / trans housing modifications legal to allow for swaps?

benefits to expliting these measurements are lower CG, both of the engine AND of the car as a whole allowing the chassis to be set lower without CV axle bind and better weight balance, including offset weight for a smaller drivetrain. there's liekly some actual but small power benefits as well from minimizing driveline misalignment at ride height, if not from less obvious things like creating better intake pathways and the like.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, not intending to pick on you. I agree with what you're suggesting, but...

>>> original angular orientation and the bellhousing plane can be part of the VTS requirements.

There are no VTS for cars in Super Touring U and L. Anything can run in that class with the appropriate engine. And there won't be any VTS for engines except non-US market engines.

>>> make a specific year range and model of car(s) part of the alternative engine allowance.

Unfortunately, that's cat's long out of the bag, unlikely to be further restricted. But to do so would require a wholesale change in the philosophy, in addition to having to specifically approve each and every possible combination, immediately making any swap non-compliant until the STAC/CRB goes through the process of approving them. And given our slow lead times (request ->STAC ->CRB -> Fastrack) we'd be holding people up until we did.

It'll probably bite us in the ass eventually, but I just can't see moving from an "open" philosophy to a "permitted only".

>>> BTW, are shift linkage / trans housing modifications legal to allow for swaps?

Can't say for sure without specifics - and it's not really mine to say - but I would suggest it's compliant to change a car from cable to rod or hydraulic shift, if that's what the desired trans used.

>>> AND of the car as a whole allowing the chassis to be set lower without CV axle bind and better weight balance...

Note ST classes each have minimum ride height.

GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

I'm personally leaning toward the "within the engine compartment" or something along the same lines. The category already has a fairly large set of engine allowances, and something like that is far easier to scrutineer. But on the other hand, what could someone do such an open reg? Would anything they do be a significant change? If so, do we care? I'd really like to brainstorm the extremes of what could be done if given a big open hole like that to drive through.

---

2. Engine and gearbox mounts may be solid, but must not relocate
the engine or transmission in any direction.

3. Either the OEM transmission or an alternate transmission must
be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same
manufacturer as the vehicle (e.g., an Acura transmission may be
installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in
their entirety.

What if the alternate transmission must move the engine somewhat from the "stock" location? What is the stock location if I'm putting an engine into a car that never had that engine in the first place, i.e., engine swap?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

What is the stock location if I'm putting an engine into a car that never had that engine in the first place, i.e., engine swap?

---

That's really the crux of the agenda item we're facing now: installing a rotary engine into a car that only had a piston engine (or vice versa). A reasonable person would say "well, that's a different story, do whatcha gotta do". But then a competitor will say, "well, if *he* can move the trans down lower without measurable restriction to accommodate that engine, why can't I do the same in my car that already *has* that engine..."?

Allowing alternate engines/trans comes with it a certain level of implied allowances. We need to figure out where that implication ends.

GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Allowing alternate engines/trans comes with it a certain level of implied allowances. We need to figure out where that implication ends.

GA

---

Let me know when you figure it out.

Ron "Considering a nasty Ford 2L with alternative transmission laid over about 50 degrees so it be much closer to the ground than hood" Earp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

Ron "Considering a nasty Ford 2L with alternative transmission laid over about 50 degrees so it be much closer to the ground than hood" Earp

---

But you see, that kinda stuff just doesn't bother me. If you want to spend all that time, money, investment, hassles to do that, I think ST is a great place for it. In the end you will have spent a tons of resources trying to develop it, you can't run dry sump in STL (and 2L engines are prob not competitive in STU where you can), your chassis still has to be 5" off the ground, you're going to weigh the same as other 2L engines (plus RWD 'cause I know you're a RWD guy), and...

...in the end all those resources and all that effort will result in very little performance benefit. Especially since you're probably going to put it in a damn Mustang chassis! ;) And some guy in a Miata is still gonna wax your tail.

But if you want to do it, I say "keep a build log with photos, babe!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

2. Engine and gearbox mounts may be solid, but must not relocate
the engine or transmission in any direction.

3. Either the OEM transmission or an alternate transmission must
be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same
manufacturer as the vehicle (e.g., an Acura transmission may be
installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in
their entirety.

What if the alternate transmission must move the engine somewhat from the "stock" location? What is the stock location if I'm putting an engine into a car that never had that engine in the first place, i.e., engine swap?

---

The problem with that is that the doors are already open in regards to trans. I can run a 6 spq sequential if I want. McClughan's Mazda 6 has an XTrac tranny with an external diff and that damn thing costs more than my car, truck, trailer, and all my spares combined! Of course it's mated to a Comptech engine too.


______________

Given all these relocation issues and blah blah blah, the old fully-built WC-TC cars all have every bit of that taken into account already. They also have gorgeous custom intake manifolds and airboxes (and restrictor plates to go with them)..

If you're going to open the door, why not just knock down the whole wall on that side of the barn?! :026:

I'm dense but not dense enough to try and run a Ford Sn95 in a FWD Honda class. However, the thought is intriguing of what one could do with a 2L Miata and liberal application of the legal rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Earp

However, the thought is intriguing of what one could do with a 2L Miata and liberal application of the legal rules.

---

..and that's what I'm asking: what's the worst-case scenario?

[Clarkson]How bad could it be...?[/Clarkson]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, not intending to pick on you. I agree with what you're suggesting, but...

>>> original angular orientation and the bellhousing plane can be part of the VTS requirements.

There are no VTS for cars in Super Touring U and L. Anything can run in that class with the appropriate engine. And there won't be any VTS for engines except non-US market engines.

---

using VTS in the vaguest of senses here. if the doner car and engine are USDM, then refeences are available. you made a point that this would be hard to tech for non USDM doner cars. have non USDM doner engines include this information in their listing when they are permitted. soup.

Quote:

---

>>> make a specific year range and model of car(s) part of the alternative engine allowance.

Unfortunately, that's cat's long out of the bag, unlikely to be further restricted. But to do so would require a wholesale change in the philosophy, in addition to having to specifically approve each and every possible combination, immediately making any swap non-compliant until the STAC/CRB goes through the process of approving them. And given our slow lead times (request ->STAC ->CRB -> Fastrack) we'd be holding people up until we did.

---

again, the cvomment was with regard to newly approved, non USDM motors.

Quote:

---

It'll probably bite us in the ass eventually, but I just can't see moving from an "open" philosophy to a "permitted only".

---

was a misread - I'm trying to point out a way that you can regulate transplant placement going forwar din any way that you want. if the info becomes irrelvat due to openness, fine. if you (the STAC) decide to place limits on engine position / orientation, you have that available for the "hard to tech" engines from other markets. it CAN get ugly, I'm sure a lot of people might have issue with transplant or stock motors being set back, down, and/or roatated as Ron suggests (they did take back some of these allowances in STO not too long ago, so there's your precedent). what your job is to do is to decide if you want to see how bad it is (fully open), or set up limits and adjust them as you see fit in the future. I vote #2.

Quote:

---

>>> BTW, are shift linkage / trans housing modifications legal to allow for swaps?

Can't say for sure without specifics - and it's not really mine to say - but I would suggest it's compliant to change a car from cable to rod or hydraulic shift, if that's what the desired trans used.

---

I'm thinking FWD trnasaxle in a mid engined car (I'm MR2 centric) - inputs are on the "wrong" side of the case. easy button for the 4A/3S/2ZZ series is use the center section from the trans that came with some MR2 with the same trans series, but it's easy enough to adapt many of the cases too. just wondering if that is legal (seems to fit the roffe corollary and the spirit of the swap allowance)

Quote:

---

>>> AND of the car as a whole allowing the chassis to be set lower without CV axle bind and better weight balance...

Note ST classes each have minimum ride height.

GA

---

yeah, they do, but sometimes, particularly with FWD cars, you can't even GET to the allowed ride height due to axle bind (maybe only in roll but still there) and even if you can, you can still make the system better by bringing the axles into alignment. is the diff position open in RWD IRS cars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

..and that's what I'm asking: what's the worst-case scenario?

[Clarkson]How bad could it be...?[/Clarkson]

---

Worst case scenario is that guys like me ( with limited budgets and technical expertise ) say the price to play is too high and we do something else.

Allowing more and more modifications is not how I would grow the ST classes.

The guys with healthy budgets and technical skills already have GT classes and Prod classes.

Maybe the compromise position is to allow the wide open stuff in STO & STU and keep STL more of a bolt on class before it gets out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip42

if the doner car and engine are USDM, then refeences are available.

---

Where in the FSM - our "bible" for technical reference - is the location of the engine specified? And if it's there, can that be easily measured at the track with basic tools, or do we have to bring it to a frame machine?

Show me, because an unenforceable limit is not a limit (see "tech shed legal").

Quote:

---

I'm thinking FWD trnasaxle in a mid engined car (I'm MR2 centric) - inputs are on the "wrong" side of the case. easy button for the 4A/3S/2ZZ...

---

Can't offer an educated opinion on that one, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

...is the diff position open in RWD IRS cars?

---

No, not that I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TStiles

Worst case scenario is that guys like me ( with limited budgets and technical expertise ) say the price to play is too high and we do something else.

---

Even STL ain't gonna be cheap, and it's going to be much, much worse within the National racing program (see the Knestis corollary). When people are spending $55k+ for a Spec Miata, you can be assured we're talking much more than that for a full-up Super Touring build, even for Light.

Right now, not so much an issue; I can win STL races today in my ITS+ Integra. But as that class vies for a National Championship and the interest grows - and I'm very confident it will - you can count on that opportunity quickly disappearing.

I'm not trying to discourage you from interest and participation, I'm simply trying to say where I predict this class is going.

Quote:

---

Maybe the compromise position is to allow the wide open stuff in STO & STU and keep STL more of a bolt on class before it gets out of control.

---

I tried that and was dismissed. See prior letters from me from late 2010/early 2011 in regard to limiting seam welding, glass and panel replacements, multi-point rollcages. That cat's done gone well and truly out of the bag.

STL is a lower prep version, but it won't ever be a low prep version.

GA

STL is a lower prep version, but it won't ever be a low prep version.

Isn't that what IT is for?

On another note!!
Somebody check my math:
Original plans: E30 with M42 1.8l 4 cyl(1.3)=2340 base weight= RWD adder 58.50=2398.5=2399 lbs
Then the increase
plans: E30 with M42 1.8l cyl(1.35)= 2430 base weight+ RWD adder 60.75= 2490.75= 2491 lbs
Future was: E30 with something something 2.0l(1.35)= 2700 base weight+RWD adder 67.50= 2767.5=2768 lbs
therefore my 1.5x.095 cage is no longer an option as my weight has exceeded 2700?
So I'm pickled?? Or STU bound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Where in the FSM - our "bible" for technical reference - is the location of the engine specified? And if it's there, can that be easily measured at the track with basic tools, or do we have to bring it to a frame machine?

Show me, because an unenforceable limit is not a limit (see "tech shed legal").

---

it's not. but neither are alot of things that are still enforcable. enforcement DOESN'T HAVE TO BE done at the track. it's not preferred but if you make the rule you have specified that the intent is to position the motor as it was from the factory, should it have been fitted in that car. not shifted this way and that for optimum driveline alignment at lower than stock ride height, weight balance, etc...

if you don't put some rules in place, you could eventually wind up with somethign like a road-race super modfied. who here wouldn't like something like a miata with the engine 2" to the right? or 4" to the right and rotated 60° with a trick sump on it. and before you answer, think of the seating position you could achieve with that setup. your rules are headed that way. once someone does it you either say "yup, that's cool" and start an arms race that ends in the obsolesence of the category, or you reign it back in and piss of that builder. fix it now and you don't have either of those unwanted outcomes AND you confine the class to a set of predetermined ideals. don't let the momentum take this class to "it has to look like a car and have an engine in it" status. you think it's hard to enforce stuff now, but eventually there will be no need for an FSM, much less a rule book.

I still can't understand how one category could allow VW motors mounted in porsches and at whatever orientation and position they want but mandate that it run the engine's original (or the chassis! WTF??) intake manifold and be worried about what is and isnt' stock. might as well be custom engines from the block up with cam and CR limits and weight by displacement. at least that's transparent, the rest of the setup is just a recipe for craziness, and no I don't think it's the good kind of crazy. I really think that unless you guys get a hold of the category you are going to drown it in unintedned consequences.

After thinking about this whole issue some more, I came to about the same conclusion Chip did. If you don't closely circumscribe what can be done, you'll start and arms race on engine location that will make any already overly expensive class (that's another topic) even more so.

I think cars using the stock engine should leave it where it came originally, and swapped engines should be installed as close to the standard location as feasible.

How about this language for the engine location rule?

Engine location (RWD vehicles)-

1. Cars which utilize the engine that was originally in that chassis shall retain the stock engine location.

2. Cars which utilize an alternate engine shall install the alternate as close to the original engine location as possible.
a) The engine's fore and aft location shall be no further back than one of the
following:
1) The alternate engine's mating surface with the transmission shall be no
further back than that of the engine originally installed in the chassis, OR
2) the alternate engine's number one spark plug shall be no further back
than the number one spark plug in the engine originally installed in the
chassis. Where the chassis had more than one type of engine available, the
engine with the number one spark plug that is furthest forward shall be used
for this measurement.
3) In no case may the alternate engine's rear mating surface be further back
than the firewall.
For FWD engines installed in RWD cars, the firewall may be modified to clear the
intake manifold or engines accessories.

b) The engine's crankshaft centerline shall be be located within one inch
horizontally and vertically of the centerline of the originally installed engine
measured relative to the front crossmember. A lower engine location is
permitted for alternate engines which cannot fit under the standard hood
at this height. Such engines can be mounted no lower than is necessary
for major engine components to clear the hood skin by a maximum of one
inch.

I think this language would cover nearly any likely engine swap, and would keep the alternate engine very close to the stock location. A couple of explanations: the language in paragraph a) 2) about two original engines is intended to cover situations such as James Spurling's BMW Z3. In that case, without the "two engines" language, he would theoretically be able to install the alternate six cylinder engine with its number one plug at the location of the number one plug in the four cylinder engine. Also, this would make the FWD-to-RWD swaps comply with the same rules as everyone else, except they have would still get the firewall modification allowance.

I don't know if there needs to be some language on FWD alternate engines, since side-to-side relocations would be difficult and fore-aft limited by the half shafts. The main question is should rotation be permitted to improve halfshaft alignment? I seem to remember that IMSA used to allow engine rotation of up to 10 degrees for this purpose back in the old Proformance series for FWD cars. Maybe that should be allowed?

On the complaint that we don't know what all these measurements are, I think Chip has it right. They don't have to be known at tech, although it would be easy to acquire them for the common cars (Miatas, Rx7s, BMW Z3s, 325s, etc.). If there is a protest for some other car, the information can be found to resolve it.

Good start on it Tom, but I think we need to insert a tolerance in any positional measurement. Stock mounts do sag and move over the years, maybe say +/- 0.125" In my case I even used the motor mount brackets off my original motor. I looked it up and they were all the same part number.

Where do you locate an alternate engine?

An auto breaker's yard in Brighton?

K

These are good ideas as a concept, but lack the ability to enforce. First, show me where in the factory documentation the location of the engine is listed (show me the spec in the FSM where it says the location of the engine's centerline), within the tolerances you're specifying, and second, tell me how that's going to be measured at the track. And it does have to be measurable at the track. No SCCA region is going to pay a bond to quarantine a car to take it to some frame shop for measurement of the engine location, assuming it can even be done. I doubt any competitor will pay that bond either; hell, we can't even get people to drop a $25 protest down for incorrect weight stickers!!!

But secondarily, no one has simply answered the question: so what? Who cares? Who cares if alternate engines and transaxles are not in the close-to-stock location? You can't use "cost" as a reason for limiting them, as cost cannot be contained. Convince me the downsides of simply saying the engine has to be maintained in the engine compartment with no mods to the car. Convince me the performance benefit of leaving it open like that.

I'm becoming more convinced that trying to create regs to limit engine location will not only be ineffective, it will result in only keeping the honest people honest while the dishonest person will just spend a lot of money to get around it.

GA

I'm just trying to help, I think ST has huge potential but it has a lot of growing up to do. when I was a kid, I was going to be an astronaut, too. now I'm a middle-level engineer who sells racecar safety parts on the side and tries to eek out a few hours a week in the garage.

cost and all that is irrelevant - agreed. engine position should be controlled for ALL engines, stock USDM, non, etc... the intent SHOULD be to locate the thing in what is the stock position and orientation, or roughly where it would have been from the factory had it come in that car. not lowered, rotated, set back, etc... it's a matter of weight distribution and driveline alignment. if a swap gains you benefits over stock in this regard alone, it's a problem. find a way to make sure engines are located in acceptably stock-like locations. the all in the unmodified engine room rule is a start.

prod has such rules. (no engine movement from stock and allow limited rotation of transverse about the crank and vertical motion of "RR" engines) see 9.1.5.E.1.m.6 and 9.1.5.E.1.o.6
IT has such rules - stock position only. see 9.1.3.d.1.s
hell, even STO has restrictions on engine position. see 9.1.4.1.E.3 and 3.a. these USED TO be more lenient, I guess there's precedent that allowing too much freedom was a bad idea, eh? STO will show you your problems because that is where the big money shops first.


it's not that hard, just be big picture. place a reasonable restriction on the location and orientation of the engine. you WILL see rotation SOON, of stock and otherwise. it's natural law. stop it before it becomes an issue.

and trackside check the cam in just about ANY IT car. oh, right, unless it's a miata AND you have a cam doctor on hand, you can't. don't worry if the rule is trackside enforceable. you are specifying an intent, egregious over-runs of that intent will be dealt with by competitors and will be obvious. otherwise it's not going to BE protested.

the last thing you need to worry about is tech, half the time they can't even figure out what GOES in ST, and at what weight. I love tech guys, hell I am one (well, not so much since my daughter came to be, but we'll correct that as soon as possible), but they are being asked to "know" a whole hell of a lot. many of us can't agree on "simple" rules. it's up to experts and COA per the protest process, not trackside tech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip42

it's not that hard, just be big picture. place a reasonable restriction on the location and orientation of the engine....you are specifying an intent, egregious over-runs of that intent will be dealt with by competitors and will be obvious.

---

Bingo. Completely agree.

So that brings us back to the current reg. The current reg specifies an intent, and offers reasonable common-sense interpretation. It will NOT stop the guy that wants to play the "letter of the rules" game, but it will make the honest guys honest that understand and wish to comply with the spirit of the rules. If we start getting into body shop manuals, and plus-or-minus 1 inch, and coaxial location and all that, we're effectively codifying and inviting that "letter of the rules" game. And I just don't think that short of explcitly listing all allowed combinations with all possible engine permutations and detailing location of the same, along with a full team of educated technical inspectors to enforce it, that we can win that game.

We do have a request on the table to clarify this issue, but I don't think getting into minutiae is going to resolve it. - GA

Been watching this conversation with some interest...

...and have come to agree with Greg that there's really only so much that can be done to contain this issue, in practical terms. How about the proposition that the confines of the engine bay, firewall, subframe, and bodywork will define practical (if not absolute) limits? Absent any provision to modify those elements, there's really only so much latitude for locating an alternate engine.

It's not like we can flip the entire engine around and tip it over like was done on some Euro touring cars, possible because it could be bolted to an aftermarket dog box...

K

but you CAN bolt it to an aftermarket sequential and MAY use an adapter plate for any stock box or with a swap, and I see no reason that with allowed dry sump (even of 2 scavenge stages max) and and those allowances an engine could not be rotated, in some engine bays substantially (particularly for transverse engines). I think that's out of line with intent.

I don't write ST rules, so maybe I'm wrong. yeah, fine, unmodified engine bay/cradle/subframe but there will need to be some exceptiosn to allow instalation of a swap for mounts and pans and the like, so a clear "what we intend to allow here, play nice and no hanky pnaky please" clause is needed IMHO. I agree that a toleranced set of offset and setback dims is probobly too constrictive, but I'm going to hold firm on my oppinion about rotation of components.

engines have stock tilts all the time. that's easily documented with the required FSMs for the chassis and engine.

a rule that allows some degree of rotation from the stock orientation might be desireable. if so, make the allowance for it a hard limit, its easy to enforce. additionally, consider a rule to limit the position of the trans. something like trans must be located along the same in/output shaft axis as the stock for longitudinal engines, and axle flange/inner CV joint cup axis should be at the stock position relative to the crank for transverse / transaxle cars. consider the nominal references to be from the stock installed drivetrain.

end result is no rotated mils except as allowed for fitment and some axle alignment for transaxles. otherise it fits within the confines of the stock chassis structure with limits and allowances for modifications specific to allowing instalation of swaps such as notched subframes, relocated or fabicated chassis side motor mounts, clearancing of the inner fender walls and fire wall for manifolds and accessories, etc...

keeps the crazy down, specifies your intent with an understandable and tech-applicable set of rules, is relatively simple and concise, and allows for some freedom to be creative with swap fitment. and, if needed, it's protestable though liekly to go COA for a real ruling and yes, requiring confiscation and large bonds.