Not a "Done Deal"

[rlward]

I am not trying to cheat, The wrecking yards seemd a good place to find an inexpensive part. Wouldn't a change in casting numbers fall under the updating/backdating rule?

[Rabbit07]

I am not trying to cheat, The wrecking yards seemd a good place to find an inexpensive part. Wouldn't a change in casting numbers fall under the updating/backdating rule?
[/b]

Not unless they used that Casting # on a car that is classed on the same spec line. Turbo cars aren't classed in IT.

[Gary L]

Not unless they used that Casting # on a car that is classed on the same spec line. Turbo cars aren't classed in IT. [/b]

Even if they are on the same spec line, it is entirely possible that using another head could still be technically illegal. From the GCR, 9.1.3.C, emphasis mine...

Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing).[/b]

If for instance, the spec line includes engines A and B, the only differences between the two being the head casting and the crankshaft, I cannot legally run head A on an engine with crankshaft B.

[Knestis]

Another good point. I can't mix the dual valve spring OBDII head and earlier oil squirter bottom end on the MkIII Golf, even though all of the parts are off of cars on the same spec line.

K

[rcc85]

The same casting numbers were used on both the carb/tbi engines and the turbo engines. The turbo heads got sodium filled exhaust valves and a different (lower duration, I think, cam).

What you have to watch is the difference between the '85 and earlier "bathtub" heads ("445" and "287" castings) and '86 and up swirl ("782" casting). The swirl head has a 6cc smaller combustion chamber and longer valves. The engines with the bathtub heads used flat top pistons and the engines with the swirl heads used dished pistons to keep the same compression ratio. If you use a swirl head with flat top pistons you will probably raise your compression ratio more than half a point. If you use a bathtub head with dished piston, you will lower your compression ratio.

For the Shelby, I think you are legal as long as you use a "445" or "287" casting with the carb cam (the "782" head would not have come on those cars). I'll let others ponder whether the sodium filled exhaust valves are legal in a carb engine (probably not, huh?).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[Gary L]

I'll let others ponder whether the sodium filled exhaust valves are legal in a carb engine (probably not, huh?).[/b]

Probably not, indeed. If the sodium filled valves were used only on Turbo motors, you can't use them in some other engine and meet the "complete assembly" requirements of the update/backdate allowances paragraph.

[rlward]

So...what do you do when the parts are NLA?

[Greg Amy]

So...what do you do when the parts are NLA?[/b]

If parts are NLA, and you can provide documentation to that fact, the rules do allow you to petition the SCCA for an allowable replacement. Unless and until that replacement is approved, you're SOL.

We've kinda touched on this subject when discussing classes like ITC; the general consensus is that these cars "probably" should die a natural death as parts go NLA. Sounds harsh, but if you start allowing alternate parts, it becomes a hornet's nest of requests, approvals, and opportunities for cheating (I'd certainly take advantage of it, if I could...) - GA

[michael baumet]

Regarding Gary's storyabout the 4 Volvo engines that were illigal and the cheater cam posts, I have one as well, in 1999 I purchased a MkII Golf that had been raced in ITB for years. I found an aftermarket cam that had so much lift the head had been machined to make room for the lobes to pass without hitting.

I have never seen a protest for a car suspected to be illegal in 7 years of racing, maybe its time to start.

Michael

[rcc85]

There's still plenty of 2.2 Dodge engine parts available through Auto Zone and Advance Auto Parts . Cams, followers, lash adjusters, pistons, rings, etc. That's the nice part about sharing parts with millons of K-cars.

It's the sources for suspension parts that are drying up.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Daytona

[ScotMac]

About 7 heads for sale on car-part.com for as low as $50.

[rlward]

That is my point. They are all 2.2, but which version. If the head casing is such a big deal because of combustion chamber shape, ect, and thoses heads were only made in the early years, parts houses are going to carry "universal" parts; most likely all made to fit the turbo version of which there were probably millions. The 2.2 we are all talking about is normally asperated and was made for a short time relative to the total time the 2.2 was in production. Sort of like the chevy 265 ci engine. Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?

[/b]

"Fit" and "Stock" are two TOTALLY different things.

[Knestis]

... Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?
[/b]

We? I don't know. Me? Yup.

I've got a cam from a '99 VW Cabrio that mics out as being a chunk better than what we run that drops right into my ABA 2.0 - the "same" engine came in both cars. I can't use it unless I come up with rock-solid evidence that it came in a car on my spec line. And even then, I'd have to decide to use the entire long block associated with that part, as delivered.

The WHOLE POINT of the update-backdate assembly rule was to prevent people from mixing-and-matching individual parts (a la pop-up pistons and squash heads) to get something that goes faster than what the OE parts would do.

We just don't want to get in the business of "may I please have's" in IT.

K

[Quickshoe]

Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?
[/b]

Part A) YES, part NO, the cars don't have to die, they may evolve to classes or organizations where the ruels are a little more to the owners' liking.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rodger,

Your letter just got posted to the ITAC site. You are aware that you do not have to add any extra weight to run in ITB, correct? All your effort this past year is equally applicable in ITB as it is in ITA. Sell off your 7" wheels, buy some 6" wheels and have some fun in a class where you will be much more competitive.

And for the record, I think we got 2 letters of support (1 plus the original request) and 2 letters against the move.

[Z3_GoCar]

That is my point. They are all 2.2, but which version. If the head casing is such a big deal because of combustion chamber shape, ect, and thoses heads were only made in the early years, parts houses are going to carry "universal" parts; most likely all made to fit the turbo version of which there were probably millions. The 2.2 we are all talking about is normally asperated and was made for a short time relative to the total time the 2.2 was in production. Sort of like the chevy 265 ci engine. Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?
[/b]

So what happened?? I was the blue-flag on the top of magic mountain and gave the meat-ball. I heard you had your tech sticker pulled. Hope it's not too serious.

James

[JGreen]

The best I can tell you is to write, write again and if that doesn't work write again. The directors do read these comments and pass them along to the CRB. If there are several drivers with the same opinion DO NOT write one letter and everyone sign it. Each person should write a letter and send it seperatly to the BOD.