Updating/Backdating

I was looking through the GCR trying to figure out what is legal and what is not in ST, and think the rules may need work.
Alternate engines of the same manufacturer (Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infinity, Toyota/Lexus, etc) are legal, but next to nothing is written on it.


G. Engine
1. Alternate engines may be used, given that 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. The chosen engine must
retain its original cylinder head and intake manifold. If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is installed in a rear
wheel drive vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds may be considered.


I can't believe that is all that is written on the use of alternate engines. I was expecting pages. I have done tons of swaps in my day, SR's, B, D and K's in Hondas, 5 lug swaps, brakes swaps and they are never just cut and dry.
You can't just make a blanket statement "alternate engines may be used".
If alternate engines can be used, updating/backdating really has to be legal. Putting an engine from a different model of the same manufacturer most times requires updating/backdating.
Driveshafts/axles may need updating/backdating
Subframes may need updating/backdating
When subframes are updated/backdated it usually now means the suspension arms will also need to be.
The steering rack also may need to be updated/backdated.



Looking at the brake section:
E. Brakes
1. OEM brake systems must be used. Alternate OEM brakes rotors or calipers from the same manufacturer will be
considered.
If OEM brakes from the same manufacturer is allowed, which I really think it should be. OEM brake upgrades are cheap and effective.
Spindles, forks, hubs, and arms may need to be updated/backdated.
Proportional valves, brake boosters, master cylinders, abs components, and e-brake components may need to be updated/backdated to safely run the upgraded brakes.
Updating/backdating these parts really doesn't increase the cars performance at all, it just makes it possible to run the alternate engine and/or brakes correctly as the manufacturer designed it. If you are allowing the performance upgrade (engine/brakes) you really need to allow the parts to have it done to factory spec.
As long as the parts* were available on a 1985 or newer USDM car, from the same manufacturer, unmodified to make fit (should bolt in factory fit), then I think they should be legal.
*subframes, steering rack, driveshaft/axels, arms, spindles, forks, hubs, proportional valve, brake booster, master cylinder, abs components, and e-brake components.

An excellent series of questions, one I have thought about. However, I bounce back to this:

'If it says you can, than you bloody well can'...unless it says you can't.

So in a nutshell, drop in that motor, add your custom motor mounts, drive shaft, etc, etc....UNLESS it tells you that something is prohibited (or on the flip side - manditory - like stock suspension arms or pick up points, etc).

'All allowed modifications may not perform a prohibited function' - or something like that. But the STAC may want to clarify the intent here. One thing I will caution you on is the 'but this doesn't really increase the cars performance' arguement - because that is a red-herring. Of course it does. If you have to do 'it' to install the better motor, then it contributes a ton to the increased performance.

Thanks Andy for the insight.

My point on 'it doesn't increase the cars performance' is related to the engine mounts, driveshafts, etc to make the swap happen, not the engine. They are allowing the increased performance (the alternate engine), but if you are not allowed to updated/backdate the supporting parts to make it happen, what is the point of making alternate engine legal, if it can't be done legally. Not to mention the position of an alternate engine will not be in the same location as the original.

Just hate to build a car that get's deemed illegal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0100

Just hate to build a car that get's deemed illegal...

---

At this point in the game, I suggest a little conservatism and patience is in order. I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that, in my own personal opinion, while it's generally settled the category is not quite fully baked, and general concepts such as these are not yet fully understood.

How long that will take is up for debate, but again I don't think I'm out of line when I say that the STAC has scheduled a concall to exclusively discuss the core philosophy of the category and how that will affects rules, changes, and "interpretations" going forward.

Just sit tight for now, the category's not going away.

GA

Greg's point is correct, however, the CRB and STAC need to understand they have a class and a set of rules out there now. People may build. This stuff needs to get nailed down YESTERDAY.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Yea, the cart IS before the horse.
To the STACs credit they have convened an EXTRA con call, and I applaud that. Having been on the ITAC, and having tried to do such things, I know the ability to GET the con call time from HQ AND get the AC to agree to be on it is a tough combination.

Sounds good, glad you guys are working on getting the horse back in front of the cart. :023:

Hopefully having Greg on the STAC will help get the big picture aspect in the discussion. often our ACs have a "finishing line" mentality, to the detriment of a good foundation.

I suspect that, based on comments from Chris that there will be 'allowances' made to cars via line item exceptions. This has been termed 'comp adjustments' in the past. Based on the formulaic method of classing that ignores stock restrictions, yet requires stock components, ( a bit of a conflict there) this will be a needed step. And that's fine, IF the STAC can create a POLICY and PROCEDURE of when and how such allowances are made. Otherwise, it's going to be a category with many of the same drawbacks as some others.

And that would be a shame, because the ruleset has it's appeal.

G. Engine
1. Alternate engines may be used, given that 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. The chosen engine must
retain its original cylinder head and intake manifold. If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is installed in a rear
wheel drive vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds may be considered


not clear, so can i take a 6cyl engine from a bmw e46 chassis (2001) n put it in my bmw 6cyl e36 chassis (1993), update/backdate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.J

not clear, so can i take a 6cyl engine from a bmw e46 chassis (2001) n put it in my bmw 6cyl e36 chassis (1993), update/backdate

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

Hopefully having Greg on the STAC will help get the big picture aspect in the discussion. often our ACs have a "finishing line" mentality, to the detriment of a good foundation.

I suspect that, based on comments from Chris that there will be 'allowances' made to cars via line item exceptions. This has been termed 'comp adjustments' in the past. Based on the formulaic method of classing that ignores stock restrictions, yet requires stock components, ( a bit of a conflict there) this will be a needed step. And that's fine, IF the STAC can create a POLICY and PROCEDURE of when and how such allowances are made. Otherwise, it's going to be a category with many of the same drawbacks as some others.

And that would be a shame, because the ruleset has it's appeal.

---

Just an FYI, we plan on using SCCA owned Data Boxes installed in competitors cars to quantify vehicle performance and make weight and/or restrictor plate adjustments from there. We are starting with STO at Sebring next week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Yes.

---

so I can use a 3.2 motor in stu @ 3200lbs, but i can't use a 01 e46 m3 engine (s54 3.2),

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.J

so I can use a 3.2 motor in stu @ 3200lbs, but i can't use a 01 e46 m3 engine (s54 3.2),

---

Again, x42 dash 3 slash 14 raised to the the 3rd.

E36 95-99 engine, whatever that is. Read Da rUleZ, bro!

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rabbit07

Just an FYI, we plan on using SCCA owned Data Boxes installed in competitors cars to quantify vehicle performance and make weight and/or restrictor plate adjustments from there. We are starting with STO at Sebring next week.

---

my car is basically sold, the new owner was to have tested it this week thur at sebring(postponed thanks to the snow) n then i was gonna run the national in sto (took as much weight out, install airplane wing), just to have some fun,i kind of saw this wc/stu thing coming, so i'm going in a different direction, i'll probadly go to daytona this weekend n watch the grand-am test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Again, x42 dash 3 slash 14 raised to the the 3rd.

E36 95-99 engine, whatever that is. Read Da rUleZ, bro!

;)

---

i was just poking at the rules, my car is basically sold n the new owner wants a s54, it's going to another land

Yo hoping you will still run stu next year in another car??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benspeed

Yo hoping you will still run stu next year in another car??

---

we were one of the few wc cars running the class (which it was created for,lol),most often the other cars were cars from another class, so the competition was lacking, the last race my son did he skipped qual n started last n by the end of the first lap he was in first place, after the race he express to me that he's done, unless we move to another class or the stu class gets more comptetive, racing for us is more than winning we want to earn it, we want to race each lap as if the checker flag is around every corner, he's bought a go-kart, i'm building another car n we r going to run in a class where we have to fight for a podium (isn't that y we race)