Manual/power steering swap?

[Chip42]

The Process...

massively off topic at this point. I apologize for my contribution to that.

should we or should we not allow for UD/BD of unique assemblies between body style of the same make / model / spec line?

if yes, why?

if no, why not? and how to approach the clarification, via a more specific statement of Specification, or by breaking down the spec lines?

[TomL]

Andy - I fail to see the distinction between the two. Once you allow updating/backdating, you are allowing stuff that wasn't available on your specific car. In erlich's example, 96-97 Camaros which never came with disc brakes are allowed to use discs from 98-02 (and Josh agrees). All years AND all make/model/body for a particular car are covered by a single spec line - what is the rationale for allowing swaps for essentially any year-to-year differences, (which can be considerable from a performance perspective) while differences between models or bodies, which are usually trivial, are verboten. In real terms, what would be lost by adopting definition #2?

I understand that there are reasons to limit what kind of updating you can do, such as not allowing mix-and-match pistons and heads in VWs, for example. But it seems that for that type of problem, the "complete assembly" language is an adequate fix. I don't see what problem that the body type restriction is meant to address.

[JoshS]

At this point, I have to ask - why is the body type restriction included in the first place? What purpose (other than "that's what the rule says" ) is supposed to be accomplished by NOT allowing UD/BD between body types?

I am just speculating, but I suspect that the body type limitation is intended to prevent someone from putting together truly a frankenstein car. That is, a part on body style A that doesn't really mount properly to body style B (due to the mismatch in shape), but is enough of an advantage to want to do so.

For example, one of you yahoos would argue that since a 2-door Accord has rear glass and the 4-door has rear doors, and that someone doesn't want the added weight of those doors, they'd try to claim that they can replace their rear doors with the 2-door's rear glass due to the update/backdate allowance.

Update/backdate, by its name, is about DATES. It's not intended to let you put something together. The limitations about body style, make, model, and engine size basically limit the mixing & matching to things that differ by date but not much else.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy - I fail to see the distinction between the two. Once you allow updating/backdating, you are allowing stuff that wasn't available on your specific car.

It doesn't matter what my car WAS, it matters what I am presenting it to BE. And what is has to be is something that is on the spec line and not a cross section of parts that were never available between different makes, models or body types from the years on the spec line.

If the 'wagon' version came with a special front bumper cover that allowed for better cooling to a HD radiator, you could not put that onto the 'coupe' or 'sedan' version, even if it was on the same spec line. Like the rule or not, to me that concept is clear as written. Outdated? Needed? YMMV.

[TomL]

After further reflection, I think I figured out what the purpose of the make/model/body type language. The M/M/BT describes the car(s) that are covered by that spec. In most cases, the spec lists (along with the model years) a single make and model but no body type, which has to mean that all body types are included. In a few instances, there are multiple models on the same line (01-03 Protege ES/LX in ITA), while a few others have separate lines for nominally identical models because they have different engines/HP, etc. (CRX Si vs HF). Similarly, there are a few cars which do list one or more body styles. In some cases, (I think the ITR BMW 325 E46 coupe is one), there are other body styles which are not listed. (For others, (ITR BMW Z3 coupe and roadster, ITA Neon 2 and 4 door), the listing seems to cover all the available body styles, so I wonder why those specs don't, like most other listings, simply omit body type. Seems to serve no purpose.)

Remember, the language is UD/DB "is only permitted within cars of the same, model and body type .... as listed on a single IT spec line." I suspect the reason that this language was included was to keep someone from using parts not covered by the spec line listing, i.e., [model example] no Si parts on an HF and [body type example] no sedan parts (not listed) on a coupe (listed). And obviously, you can't use Honda parts on your Mazda [make example]. In other words, you can't use parts from a car that is not included on your spec line (which is defined by years, make, model and, in a few cases, body type). To me, this is the only good reason I can see to have the language at all, and it would still be consistent with definition #2.

[Greg Amy]

...I suspect that the body type limitation is intended to prevent someone from putting together truly a frankenstein car.

To an extent, you're correct.

The "body type" was an addition after the original rules were written; the original rule stated something like ud/bd allowed within same make/model/engine size car. However, I don't recall that station wagons were specifically excluded at that time, and it soon became apparent that manufacturers - especially 'Merican ones - equipped their wagons with heavier-duty equipment, including heavier-duty engines, intakes, suspensions, and brakes. Remember, "back then" wagons were really nothing more than light-duty pickup trucks underneath, not these fruity-car unibodies ...so, it was some time later that the "body style" restriction was added.

Today, that is usually no longer the case. If you buy a Widget XR32 hatchback, it typically has the same equipment as the Widget XR32 "avant", and/or it has equipment differences that are irrelevant within the context of the IT regs. Ergo, within the context of this history, allowing (as an example) a Ford Escort hatchback to run the manual rack from the Ford Escort sedan, both of which are on the same IT spec line and certainly given both are specifically listed on that same line, is well within the original spirit of the rules. At that point it becomes the responsibility of the ITAC/CRB to determine significant differences in equipment due to body styles, should there be any, and place them on a separate line if necessary.

I can see both sides of the argument, now that we've attempted to deeply intorturate the words. I won't take a set on who may be correct, but it has always been my expectation/assumption that as long as the cars are on the same line, equipment can be freely switched. If this is not the case, I can easily think of several cars now that would be illegal (think of cars now that are running equipment combinations that the manufacturer never offered)...

Should this be taken up by the CRB, I predict they will freely allow equipment substitutions back and forth within the same spec line, and if necessary task the ITAC to determine which cars should be moved to a discrete spec line (the proper way to do it). - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can see both sides of the argument, now that we've attempted to deeply intorturate the words. I won't take a set on who may be correct, but it has always been my expectation/assumption that as long as the cars are on the same line, equipment can be freely switched. If this is not the case, I can easily think of several cars now that would be illegal (think of cars now that are running equipment combinations that the manufacturer never offered)...

Well, you can, except between body types. Assuming all cars on a spec line have the same sized engine, what generic example can you think of?

You can swap all kinds of parts and combinations as is, just not unique parts from different body styles. The rule allows us to mix and match assemblies from everything in the given year range on the spec line....except from different body styles.

[Greg Amy]

Actually, you got me there, Andy; I was thinking of cars with a combination of equipment that the manufacturer never supplied. I can't think of one right off-the-cuff where that's a result of an actual body type difference.

But think of it this way: if the intent of the rule is to block a Frankenstein, "vernacularly" defined as a combination of parts that the manufacturer never supplied thus potentially increasing performance over any version of the original IT-spec'd model, then the rule fails; we both know of current examples of that. Therefore, if we accept that Frankensteins are legal now as a result of parts being switched among the same body style, then we must accept similar Frankensteins for cars on the same line but with different body styles.

And, if the ITAC/CRB determines that the performance potential of the Widget XR32 hatchback is significantly different enough from the Widget XR32 Avant such that a Frankenstein can be built that dramatically increases in performance over either model, then those cars should be classified separately.

So, bottom line, Frankies exist now; are we going to acknowledge and embrace that reality, or are we going to reign it back in?

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, you got me there, Andy; I was thinking of cars with a combination of equipment that the manufacturer never supplied. I can't think of one right off-the-cuff where that's a result of an actual body type difference.

But think of it this way: if the intent of the rule is to block a Frankenstein, "vernacularly" defined as a combination of parts that the manufacturer never supplied thus potentially increasing performance over any version of the original IT-spec'd model, then the rule fails; we both know of current examples of that. Therefore, if we accept that Frankensteins are legal now as a result of parts being switched among the same body style, then we must accept similar Frankensteins for cars on the same line but with different body styles.

And, if the ITAC/CRB determines that the performance potential of the Widget XR32 hatchback is significantly different enough from the Widget XR32 Avant such that a Frankenstein can be built that dramatically increases in performance over either model, then those cars should be classified separately.

So, bottom line, Frankies exist now; are we going to acknowledge and embrace that reality, or are we going to reign it back in?

GA

Agreed. I think the real goal and definition of a Frankie is to block the creation of a combination that EXCEEDED the performance potential of the spec line. Like bigger brakes, or body parts, etc should that come up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But think of it this way: if the intent of the rule is to block a Frankenstein, "vernacularly" defined as a combination of parts that the manufacturer never supplied thus potentially increasing performance over any version of the original IT-spec'd model, then the rule fails; we both know of current examples of that.

Examples please... If I can't shoot them down, then the rule does fail us.

[Greg Amy]

Examples please... If I can't shoot them down, then the rule does fail us.

Don't know the details, but isn't there some odd combination of engines, intakes, and injection systems on the ITS RX-7 that Mazda never delivered? then, of course (sorry, can't resist) there's the ITA Miata with different engine outputs, all on the same line...these are simply examples, I don't want to start another Miata pissing match (AMPM)...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Don't know the details, but isn't there some odd combination of engines, intakes, and injection systems on the ITS RX-7 that Mazda never delivered? then, of course (sorry, can't resist) there's the ITA Miata with different engine outputs, all on the same line...these are simply examples, I don't want to start another Miata pissing match (AMPM)...

No issues!

1. There is no combination of engines, intakes, and injection systems on the ITS RX-7 that exceeds the engine, intake, and injection system on the 1989-1991 ITS RX-7. Yes, there are COMBINATIONS that never exisited (most common is the early harness and AFM with the later high compression rotors and intake). This is however legal under UD/BD and never exceeds the potential of the later harness, MAF rotors and intake.

2. The Miatas have the same potential output as well when you UD BD as has been discussed and proven.

I just don't think there are any examples in the ITCS. The rule is fine IMHO when you read the 'body type' for what it simply is, a restriction of UD/BDing unique stuff across body types on a given spec line.

[Greg Amy]

To these, as devil's advocates debate of the topic at hand (not AMPM)...

>>> ...Yes, there are COMBINATIONS that never exisited...

Ergo, since these cars have significant differences, we assume the ITAC/CRB has specifically recognized these differences and determined that a performance potential above-and beyond any one model is not possible, or if it is, to classify the cars with this Frankenstein performance potential in mind...

>>> ...The Miatas have the same potential output as well when you UD BD as has been discussed and proven.

...yet we use the lower hp rating of the two as a descriptor for the horsepower potential of the higher one. Again, we must rely on the ITAC/CRB to make that determination in advance as part of the active process.

So, what you are inferring is that the ITAC/CRB is taking the time to investigate all these Frankenstein possibilities in advance, not only on these two specific examples but on all other cars with odd potential combos as well (certainly not ignoring Frankenstein possibilities within the same body style). The implication of that is they have, are, or could also do the same investigations for odd combos of equipment on cars of different body styles.

Ergo, the logical conclusion is that the ITAC/CRB have already made these specific determinations in regard to varying body styles of cars on the same spec line, and have either relied on the "body style rule" to ensure no cross-pollination, or are, in effect, ignoring such cross-pollination as insignificant.

I offer this only rhetorically, but I suggest this kind of deep-down investigation has - and will not - occur except in rare cases (e.g., 1.8L Miata). So, let's either toss the body style rule and accept reality, or let's move different body styles of cars to discrete lines.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, what you are inferring is that the ITAC/CRB is taking the time to investigate all these Frankenstein possibilities in advance, not only on these two specific examples but on all other cars with odd potential combos as well (certainly not ignoring Frankenstein possibilities within the same body style). The implication of that is they have, are, or could also do the same investigations for odd combos of equipment on cars of different body styles.

Whenever cars are combined on a spec line, yes, those issues are considered.

They are NOT considered for cars of different body styles because those UD/BD's are specifically disallowed.

[Greg Amy]

Whenever cars are combined on a spec line, yes, those issues are considered.

No offense intended to anyone, but I would be shocked if a variation of the following line was ever uttered in an ITAC/CRB meeting over the last two decades:

"Well, that high-performance part was only available on the [wagon/sedan/hatchback], so we don't need to account for it affecting the car's performance."

GA

[Chip42]

while PS racks and brake specs on differing body styles is pretty strait forward. whatever the determination regarding the UD/BD and body styles is, the result can be implimented without to much difficulty from a rules writing standpoint.

what about subtle things like sunroofs?

A: cars from one specline. the 01-03 protege, ITA: ES and LX. brakes spec'ed are from the ES only and never came on the LX. beyond that, the only IT-relevant differences are sunroofs. could you take a no sunroof LX body and use the specline brakes from the ES, thereby creating a model that was never sold in the US - with larger brakes and no sunroof? alternatively, could you use a DX body with crank windows, as it is identical to an LX without power options?

B: assuming cars are from a different specline - such as what happened when the VIN rule was first removed - 96-00 Civic EX, ITA: the EX came with a sunroof standard. there are coupe bodies around that could be used as doners to replace a bent EX body or for whatever reason, the final car being 100% EX mechancially. thus, would a no sunroof EX be legal?

if A is permissable, why not B? granted, one is shuffling about of components on a specline, within a body style, to create a unique car which seems to be permissible within the intent. but the other is doing the same OFF of a spec line. the cars I used were selected because they have the same classification weight in the same class and have the same factory HP rating, are both FWD, 16v 4cyls, and of simillar vintage and equipment. The EX civic hapens to have a different motor from its lower trim stablemates, while mazda went with a one-motor model from 02-on, regardless of trim.

I doubt that the classification process took the sunroofs (or lack there of) into account, or that the performance difference is significant between the 2 roofs (granted there is a CG change, but is it enough to be noticeable at all?). in both cases, the resultant car would be one that was never sold in the US but that meets the mechancial limitations of the specline. it seems more like the presence of the thing was artificially cought up in the engine classification than intentionally sequestered onto a specline.

I am more curious as to WHY the answer is what it is or why you think so. I find this situation facinating.

[quadzjr]

I am still at a loss about my mustang issue. so you are allowed to take anything off these two cars and UP/BD between them, thus creating a hybrid that never existed in real life? Yes the motors had the same displacement (but they had different heads, cams, intakes, pistons). I believe they also changed the steering geometry to fix the ackerman issues. They also as well as tranmssions, and rear differentials.

both have the same body style "notch backs"



disreguard the 5.0 badge.. this is an lx with the 5.0 swap, but you get the idea.

so you are allowed to swap over entire asseblies from one to the other (engine, tranny, etc..) with no consequence?

[Andy Bettencourt]

No offense intended to anyone, but I would be shocked if a variation of the following line was ever uttered in an ITAC/CRB meeting over the last two decades:

"Well, that high-performance part was only available on the [wagon/sedan/hatchback], so we don't need to account for it affecting the car's performance."

GA

While I can understand your comment, you have to take into account a few things. First off, any combination of spec lines done by the ITAC in the last 5-7 years has been VERY minimal. When it happens, the 'best of breed' is most ceratinly considered and classed as such. Second, since it's illegal to UD/BD between body styles, those iterations are moot so discussion is limited.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am still at a loss about my mustang issue. so you are allowed to take anything off these two cars and UP/BD between them, thus creating a hybrid that never existed in real life? Yes the motors had the same displacement (but they had different heads, cams, intakes, pistons). I believe they also changed the steering geometry to fix the ackerman issues. They also as well as tranmssions, and rear differentials.

both have the same body style "notch backs"



disreguard the 5.0 badge.. this is an lx with the 5.0 swap, but you get the idea.

so you are allowed to swap over entire asseblies from one to the other (engine, tranny, etc..) with no consequence?

On a car with different heads, cams and pistons, one would logically assume that if they are on the same spec line (ala the 2nd gen RX-7), the weight would be set for the version with the highest potential.

In the RX-7 example, the 86-88 cars came with a 146hp 13B. Since the 89-91 cars are on the smae spec line, you can UD to that powerplant. The spec weight is based on the 160hp motor and it's potential.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, isn't Greg right about the RX7 though? Don't most use the early intake coupled with the later FI system (or vice versa)? Meaning a car that never existed is created?

I'm fine with that, but fail to see why a a body style distinction should trump (what I view as) the overarching rule that if they are on the same spec line, you can update/backdate.