VW "G-Grind" camshaft...

[Banzai240]

Can someone with some VW background please fill me/us in on exactly WHAT justification was used to make the "G-grind" VW cam legal for IT engines??? The information would be most useful in answering some questions that have arrisen recently.

Thanks for the help,


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[SamITC85]

From what I have heard, is that someone came up with a factory parts list that had the G Grind cam on it. The cam itself was on the European GTI's that were made in the late 70's supposedly. Somehow it was listed as a manufactures replacement part for the stock cam that came in the 1.6's. Hope this helps.

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit
#85 GP Scirocco on the way
#11 GP Scirocco on the way

[Knestis]

I recall there being some confusion re: the difference between a "supercede" and an "equivalent" part number.

This is a GREAT example of how the same set of rules and procedures can get applied differently, influenced by context.

K

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

First off, it's only legal in the ITC 1.6 motors. I was told by someone in Denver (at the time), that documentation was provided that showed it to be a superceding part for the no longer available stock 1.6 cam.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...that documentation was provided that showed it to be a superceding part for the no longer available stock 1.6 cam.

If someone could provide me with that information it would be most useful. (By the way, this has nothing to do with VWs, but rather a similiar situation for another brand...)

Thanks,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Bill Miller]

You should be able to get that from someone in Club Racing at Topeka. I suspect that Jeremy should have access to that information. I would certainly hope that that kind of stuff is kept on file.

Or, you could always contact VWoA and do a little research. I can probably get the part #'s for the cams.

And why don't you just tell us what you're looking at, maybe someone has the information about the other car that you're looking for.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[theenico]

The question wouldn't possibly have to do with ITC 510's would it .
Anyway, in talking to some older racers who ran Sciroccos in showroom back in the late '70s, they said the G-grind came in the 1977 Scirocco or at least VWoA provided documentation saying it did. Bill has the right idea for finding out for sure.
Now if only someone could get Nissan/Datsun to supercede some part #'s...

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[Peter Olivola]

{sarcasm}

Oh, you mean the same era when Jo Hoppen was running the VW racing programs in the U.S. as well as the Porsche programs? The same era some of us remember for the 924 sunroof fiasco?

{/sarcasm}

Originally posted by theenico:
Anyway, in talking to some older racers who ran Sciroccos in showroom back in the late '70s, they said the G-grind came in the 1977 Scirocco or at least VWoA provided documentation saying it did. Bill has the right idea for finding out for sure.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And why don't you just tell us what you're looking at, maybe someone has the information about the other car that you're looking for.

Oh, that's JUST what we need are another 50 opinions to confuse the issue even more! (said in a very light hearted, jovial tone! )

[Bill Miller]

Not sure what all the secrecy is about, but as I said, it's my understanding that factory documentation was supplied indicating that it was a superceding part.

Since it's a different marque, I'm not sure what value having the actual documentation is. Get that documentation for the car you're working on.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Not sure what all the secrecy is about, but as I said, it's my understanding that factory documentation was supplied indicating that it was a superceding part.

No secrecy, just focused and don't need a debate over this.

As Nico indicated, there is a request letter in the ITAC's consideration right now requesting a specific cam be allowed for the ITC 510. I haven't finished my research, and don't want to get anyone all riled up over things until I have the facts...

Again, the only reason I looked into the VW is to find precedence on this matter, not to get it done, but just to see WHAT and HOW things were done in the past.

That's it...

[Ryan Williams]

As Bill Miller stated, the camshaft for the VW 1.6 Liter engine was superceded by VW camshaft 049-109-101-G (ie G Grind) as the original 1.6L cam was NLA. VW Microfiche 1-1081-MDD79-80 should show this change in camshaft.

A Judgement of the Court of SCCA Appeals, 93-60-MW (Travis Townsley vs. SOM), dated December 22, 1993, found that the VW G Grind camshaft was legal for the 1.6L engine through the year of 1980. This decision was based on homologation forms from Volkswagen Germany.

You will need similar type of homologation from the particular manufacturer of the car in question. Regards, Ryan Williams.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Ryan Williams:
As Bill Miller stated, the camshaft for the VW 1.6 Liter engine was superceded by VW camshaft 049-109-101-G (ie G Grind) as the original 1.6L cam was NLA. VW Microfiche 1-1081-MDD79-80 should show this change in camshaft.

A Judgement of the Court of SCCA Appeals, 93-60-MW (Travis Townsley vs. SOM), dated December 22, 1993, found that the VW G Grind camshaft was legal for the 1.6L engine through the year of 1980. This decision was based on homologation forms from Volkswagen Germany.

As I understand it, the ruling in 1993 was for a SS car, not an IT car (which doesn't make much sense, since by 1993 the VWs wouldn't have been eligible for SS??? ), but regardless of this ruling, if this is a superseded part number, then I it is CLEARLY an illegal piece in IT. Let me tell you why I believe this.

This part may be listed as a "supersession" or "replacement" part on some VW microfiche, but that in itself doesn't allow IT cars to utilize it. Take a look at the spec line for these cars (ITC - '75-80 Rabbits and Sciroccos)... There is something pretty important missing...

ITCS 17.1.4.C Specifications -
... Parts or assemblies which the manufacturer lists in factory service manuals or parts guides for a particular model which supersede or replace original parts or assemblies are permitted. Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies must be supplied to the Club Racing Department and the appropriate part numbers listed on the particular model's specification line.

So, anyone care to explain NOW how this part is legal???

One might argue that because the first sentance of the rule mentions both "supersede" and "replacement", yet the second sentance only says that "superseded" parts must be documented on the spec line, that since this is a "replacement" piece, spec line documentation isn't required...

On the other hand, since the first sentance uses "supersede" and "replacement" interchangably ("supercede or replace"), then one could argue that they are both encompased in the word "superseding" of the second sentance, therefore requiring documentation of either situation...

I see no way that this allowance would stand up to an appeal in IT based on this. Unless someone can clearly prove that this camshaft was installed in US bound VW Rabbits AND Sciroccos at some point in time between the years 1975 to 1980, there is no grounds for the update/backdate clause either...

That's what the evidence shows. I have more information coming (it just happens to be contained in the same documentation that I have coming for the Datsun research, since the person compiling it has been researching this for some time) that includes the aforementioned SOM ruling on the VW, so I'll have that document to review as well, and perhaps that will shed some more concrete light on the subject. Until that happens, however, I find it interesting how many people want rules that are more clear, but then choose to build cars based on he said/she said, and simply take people's word for what is and is not allowed.

I'm interested to hear the responses to this so please feel free. These are just the "facts" as I have found them. There is surely more infomation out there that may help further explain this. I just hope it's not more of this "well, such and such has run that cam for years and the person they bought their car from said these were legal..." Kind of hard to swallow given a healthy understanding of the rules...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 23, 2003).]

[Ryan Williams]

Darin, the Judgement of the SCCA Court of Appeals 93-60-MW (Travis Townsley vs SOM)was based on an ITB Volkswagen (1.6L engine). In 1993, the 1.6L engine was classified in ITB.

The documentation used by the Court of Appeals included the Volkswagen parts microfiche for the 1975 to 1980 cars, plus homologation forms from Volkswagen Germany.

The subject camshaft was found to be a legal part for 1975 through 1980 Volkswagen by the SCCA Court of Appeals.

I have the February 1994 Fastrack (page F-09)that documents this judgement. The subject camshaft is legal in the ITC 1975 through 1980 1.6L Volkswagens, and it is no longer an issue of protest or debate. Regards, Ryan.

[Joe Harlan]

Ryan, I may be wrong here but. If memory serves me a decission by the COA is only good through the endd of that calender year. At which point it is up to the Comp-Bod to correct the rule. The book clearly states that if the part is a superceed then it needs to be in the spec line. I think this will cause a lot of spec line additions on older cars but that is the rule. I would take the information you have which is great stuff and put it together to request that part number be added to the spec line as stated in the book...Goodluck.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Ryan Williams:
The subject camshaft was found to be a legal part for 1975 through 1980 Volkswagen by the SCCA Court of Appeals.

I have the February 1994 Fastrack (page F-09)that documents this judgement. The subject camshaft is legal in the ITC 1975 through 1980 1.6L Volkswagens, and it is no longer an issue of protest or debate. Regards, Ryan.

But WHY is it legal? Was this camshaft delivered in any '75-'80 US bound PRODUCTION Sciroccos and/or Rabbits, or is it simply listed as a superseded or replacement part? THESE are the details I need to research the Datsun case... I'm not trying to conduct a VW witch-hunt here, I'm trying to serve a portion of the membership who have a legitimate request and deserve to have it followed up on...

Thanks for the information...
Darin

[Ryan Williams]

Darin & Joe, It is my understanding that the original VW 1.6L camshaft was replaced by the VW "G" Grind camshaft by Volkswagen. Bill Miller may be able to offer more insight, but I understand that if I went to a VW dealer and asked for a 1.6L camshaft that I would be given the 049-109-101-G camshaft as the original 1.6L camshaft is NLA. Evidently this was documented in the homologation forms provided by Volkswagen German for the US cars, and this homologation was the basis for the legality of the usage of the 049-109-101-G camshaft in the ITC Volkswagens.

If you are pursuing legality of another marque camshaft for a particular class, then you will need documentation and homologation from that marque or manufacturer.

This is the extent of my knowledge about the VW 049-109-101-G camshaft and the process about its legality in the VW ITC engines. I now run a VW Production Wabbit, so I don't have any interest in this topic beyond this point. Good luck with your pursuit, Ryan.

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...anyone care to explain NOW how this part is legal???</font>

To the strictest interpretation of the rules, Darin has a point. However, when reality is in effect, that rule becomes a maintenance nightmare when taken to the extreme he implies.

Having been a Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche/Mazda parts manager in my former years, I can tell you that manufacturers consistently and regularly "supercede" part numbers with new ones. Typically, that part is superceded due to a manufacturer replacement (Bosch spark plugs instead of NGK, Timkin instead of Torrington bearings), an engineering change to accomodate a wider variety of vehicles (slight change to a lamp to fit on the Rabbit *and* Scirocco), an engineering change to fix a problem with suitability or longevity (adding a gusset to a motor mount bracket that's cracking), or a major engineering change to fix a problem (recall parts.) Regardless of the reason for the part number supercession, the manufacturer regards that subsequent part as an acceptable bolt-on replacement part for the application and will in all cases likely discontinue availability of the old part.

As I said, Part numbers are superceded on a regular basis. Trust me, this is a very common practice. If we were required to keep track of, and maintain a list of, all superceded part numbers and their progression, we would need a full-time Advisory Committee member for each and every manufacturer.

Instead, we trust the manufacturer to provide suitable replacement parts without major engineering changes unless required, and frankly it works out for everyone. Don't forget that all replacement parts provided by the manufacturer have to meet the same safety and emissions standards it did when new, plus they'll need to keep their over-the-counter customers happy with the performance of those parts (i.e., they won't give the Scirocco a lumpy idle or higher emissions).

Keeping in mind that there is no motivation for any manufacturer to "update" the performance on any replacmeent parts after the car is gone from the showroom, I think you can see that any underhanded replacements are far too inconsequential to be significant. Somehow I think VW has no interest in furthering the racing success of a 1976 ITC VW Scirocco in SCCA Improved touring competition.

I don't know the facts about this particular camshaft; hell for all I know Hoppen could have pulled a fast one. However, short of getting someone to own up to it there will be no proof of wrongdoing, and frankly I doubt anyone really gives a rat's ass. If you can go to the parts microfiche at your local Volkswagen dealer and prove that "this part number" is the VW-approved replacement camshaft for the ITC Scirocco, and it happens to have the same specs as the European G-grind cam (which really wasn't that hot of a camshaft to begin with) then you're done and there's nothing else to argue about.

Same goes for the ITC 510: go to a dealer, have them look up the part and hand one to you over the counter. Done. It's the Nissan-approved replacement part for that car and there's nothing you can do about it. It's totally irrelevant what the specs are, it's totally irrelevant what the part number is. It's totally irrelevant if it's the camshaft that Bob Sharp used to win the 1975 GT-2 Championship.

What is relevant is that it's the manufacturer-supplied replacement part, which meets both the technical limit and even the spirit of the rules.

GA

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grega:
What is relevant is that it's the manufacturer-supplied replacement part, which meets both the technical limit and even the spirit of the rules.

GA

NOT according to the CB/BoD or whoever keeps denying the 510 the allowance to use the only available factory replacement camshaft as listed in the Nissan manufacturers parts guide. The "spirit" of the rules doesn't mean squat. The WORDING of the rules does. The rules clearly state that, with the exception of a direct update/backdate, any replacement or otherwise superseded part MUST be listed on the vehicles spec line. I'm going by the book...

I still find it ironic that, with classifications, you all scream about transparency and a strict method of determining specs, but then you turn around and want to start quoting the "spirit" of the rule? I'm not quite sure how the "spirit" of "must be listed on the specification line for that vehicle" can have any other meaning other than what it says...

But, I degress... Thanks for the further information. I now have a copy of the fastrack from February 1994 and I'm working on getting a copy of CoA ruling 93-60-MW...

I have no interest in this issue (VW) other than to make sure that this guys request (for the 510) gets proper attention and, if it's to be denied, has been thoroughly investigated to assure that there are grounds for denial... So far, it looks as though that shouldn't be the case...

Take care,
Darin

PS: By the way... you guys wanted this ITAC stuff more out in the open, so here you go!! Granted, I'm just one of the members, and am pretty much on my own on this, but it's NOT behind closed doors!! Its that better???

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...any replacement or otherwise superseded part MUST be listed on the vehicles spec line.</font>

If you adhere to that strict interpretation of the rules, then I can tell you by direct knowledge and experience that virtually every (and I do mean EVERY) replacement part in all Volkswagens, Audis, Porsches, Mazdas, FoMoCo (I was a FoMoCo parts manager too), and Nissans (my ITS car) are totally illegal for use in an Improved Touring car. I will bet you a dollar to a donut that there is virtually no single replacement part in any of those cars that is the same part number as what was installed at the factory.

I can also tell you as a point of fact that I have personally installed parts into my ITS NX2000 that were superceded replacement parts that, by your definition, are illegal. I can also point out you hundreds of replacement parts on your 240SX that are, by your definition, illegal, assuming you've replaced common items such as bearings, gaskets, filters, seals, etc.

Your windmill, sir: commence tilting...