January Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

As I recall the discussion it focused on valves per cylinder. I may be wrong. I get lost in some of the lengthy discussions about the smaller Honda/Nissan/Toyota motors. There are people on the committee with a lot more knowledge about them than me.

[Chip42]

tKR, underwood etc.. civics are 16v. older ones are 2/3 depending (have to check ITCS and don't have the time). they are all SOHC. I know the 92-95 Civic DX is classed at >25%

Accord LXi/SEi, 2L Golf 3, many others are 12v SOHC

the DOHC list andy provided are all 16v. a lot of the DOHC Italian stuff is 8v.

ITCS should thus list valves/cyl as well as/ instead of cam type and count?

the point remains that as a blanket rule, the 16v at >25% concept fails to be acurate. there are cases where it may be true (some SOHC 16v hondas for sure) but more where it is not (nissan GA16DE, toyoter 4AGE, etc...) and then there are the isuzu twins at different weights neither of which match process (way under 25% for the storm). it's a cluster.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the net result is that an 'architecture rule' is being based on a small generation of overacheiving 12V Hondas yet it is applied to anything 'multivalve', regardless of MFG, in JUST ITB.

Write your well-founded letters now please. A policy change should result in the MR2 issue going away.

[Chip42]

Letters should be in support of "the process" or in opposition to the inequality of the process as applied to >3v/cyl cars in ITB? as I understand it, "the process" isn't an officially recognized classification mechanism, and this methodology isnt "published".

can a letter to the CRB be in stated opposition to an unrecognized, unpublished rule-making methodology understood to be used by an AC? or did I miss it when the CRB/BoD recognized the ITAC process? where is it published?