Should NON-US motors be allowed in ST?

[Chip42]

Well, what do you think? if you have a strong position one way or another, I'd like to know. and I bet others, up to and including the PTB, would as well.

[Knestis]

Yes. The big first assumptions of the class - as I understand them - would be in no way compromised by this approach.

K

ON EDIT - My answer might be different for STU vs STL.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I said no. What problem is this 'solution' fixing? I am not sure any. Are you opening up a market of engines that will equalize the power/cc issue?

Is it neccessary? What beneifts does it provide? Does it have the same effect for all manufacturers or just the ones 'you' (the collective you) like?

For a rule change like this, I like to hear WHY, instead of WHY NOT. (Looking at this from an STL point of view)

[JohnW]

For a rule change like this, I like to hear WHY

First, I'm not an expert. And second, I'm only concerned with Hondas. Plus, I'm certainly biased a little.

That said.

Why not?

The K20a and K20a2 are almost identical. Most of the parts can be mixed and matched. Same with much of the B series stuff. One could build a JDM spec K20a engine using a K20a2 US block and few (if any) would know any better...

That's what I'd do...

Policing would be a B-itch.

[Matt93SE]

I bet if I stuck an SR20DE in my 240SX, I could go all season locally without anybody even batting an eye. Why? Cause it says Nissan on the valve cover and it bolts in stock. (The car came with this engine in every other country it was sold.) I can provide a bazillion pictures of this engine in this chassis, including a service manual in Engrish with drawings of this engine in the chassis and everything.

The guys in tech can't possibly know every car and every US engine that's on the market, so it's nearly impossible to police this kind of stuff.

I haven't been asked to lift my hood by anyone since I got my logbook for the car back in May. Of course I've only run regionals so far, but it's not like I'm an also-ran. I've finished in the top 5 overall and won STU in all but one race to date, as well as set track record at MSR-Houston.
Nonetheless, I could have been running a freakin Chevy V8 in the car all season and nobody would know..

But am I for non-US engines? HELL YES. Nissan's engine options under 3L are crapola for the US. everything is a long-stroke truck engine, or an ancient iron block designed in the 60s. for a supposedly modern class and philosophy, Nissan is stuck with engines from the stone ages.

Do I realize it would open up the class to all kinds of other uber-engines? You betcha. Bring 'em on.

Let's go back to the rules when they were originally made for the class: (This is STU-specific..)

Normally aspirated:
Under 3.0L displacement
12.0:1 max compression
0.6" max valve lift
6 spd max transmission.
weight = 1.1lb / cc displacement
Go.

Turbo?
stock turbo for the engine it came on. no conversions.
pick a tranny, 6 spds max.
weight is based on inlet restrictor size placed in turbo.
Go.

For whatever engine you have, you must a factory service manual in English in your possession.

Very simple to police. All of the components are easy to measure and/or verify with a factory manual. Voila.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Policing is 100% moot. Tech has NOTHING to do with legality. There is no difference between STx with non USDM stuff and IT right now. It's up to the competitors to know their competition. It's also a punk move to run something illegal like that. You want your ashtray that bad? Please.

Not 'why not'. WHY? The first real reason I heard was to provide a selection that was much better suited to 'racing'. I'll buy that some.

Mostly I just see it as providing SOME a better choice and not all. I like rules that help or hurt everyone.

[Ron Earp]

Why not have ANY motor of the displacement allowed by the class? Want a 2L Honda in your Dodge, why not?

If the Honda has non-US engines of similar displacement that fit the rules, but the VW does not, why should the VW be limited? Why shouldn't the VW be allowed to run a Honda motor of displacement that fits the rules?

[Matt93SE]

Now that would just be silly.

[Knestis]

But Ron has a point. We draw lines between "makes perfect sense" and "silly" all the time (see also, WASHER BOTTLES). They are arbitrary. That's why it's so damned important to get the first principles clear before the details are decided. This is (again, as I understand it) a pounds-per-cc class. At that point, who cares where the engine came from?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Matt, no issues. Many of us hate it when the 'policing' flag is thrown. It's just not applicable. We can ll do that stuff now. We have to police ourselves.

Again, in order to get my vote, I like to see a real rason TO do it...because in this case, you are creating a situation where finding specifications in order to prove legality will be much harder.

[DoubleXL240Z]

My vote is NO. We have a few people stating that their US engine could be replaced for 1000 with a JDM-yo whatever and they could make a million hp and run for 12 years etc etc!! I read it as "I can win with this engine and not spend alot!!" Then somebody will go out and find some obscure (read:expensive) euro spec RS500 what-have-you and kick their butt, then we add weight to them or something to slow them down. That was already mentioned somewhere on this board. This is the "case by case basis" I have heard about. Then try to put the cat back in the proverbial bag.
Open up ignitions, air intakes etc. keep the compression and cam specs, go out develop them and run em!! Keep the US engines!!
Rant off!! Anybody have any valium??

[Greg Amy]

*IF* non-USDM engines were to be allowed in Super Touring, approval would be on a case-by-case basis and only after receipt of clear technical documentation of the engine(s) (e.g., supporting FSM data). It would not be a willy-nilly Wild West blanket approval of any random engine you'd like to try.

GA

[Chip42]

reasons to: lack of viable entries for STL that don't say "honda" on the valve cover. seriously, the only real option seem to be a Toyota 2ZZ-GE or some 2L motors (SR20DE, MZR LF/Duratec, 2.0L Ecotech) and MAYBE a 1.8L mazda BP, or BMW. the new fiesta motor might give ford a 1.6L worth considering. this is not a growing segment, in general, in the US. diversity in the class will need more options.

STU - less of a need, however a number fo popular options exist and are well documented. because americans had to have torquey motors, the standard motor in the rest of the world was typically one a bit smaller and often much more suited to what we are doing here.

existing cars - there are JDM/EDM swapped cars runing around in track day clubs, marquee clubs, and NASA. some of these would make good entries for ST. we aren't hereing their votes if they aren't yet members, either.

reasons for, under "why not":
class concept APPEARS (no philosopphy yet published) that displacement is close to directly proportional to power under a blanket CR/valve lift scheme. country of origin of the motor doesn't matter in this scheme, why should the market it was sold into?

for SOME makes this could lead to affordable, reliable engines that fit well into the general scheme. some of these are evolutions of USDM motors (SR20DET, RWD SR20DE, SR16/20VE, 4A-GE 20V, later 3S-GE toyotas,...) others were never sold here at all (RB25DET, VW V5s, the rumored physics inverting rally homologation motor made of gold, whatever). speclines can be used to put over/unders at a weight in line with their actual power output.

reasons against:
"unnecessary" which I think depends on what car is in your garage

the arms race to import the physics inverting motor from above.

[Rabbit07]

Guys,

To make this official, I wrote a letter last month to request JDM engines with documentation. I think it is good ffor the class, but not all involved do.

[lateapex911]

Chris, I think that's a good first step. (But why only JDM?)
But, I hope the STAC takes the time to sit down and before the request letter arrives, creates a policy that describes what they will require to allow any request. This policy should be public information, and available to all on the website, and anyone should be able to determine whether their request will be granted just by reading it.
I say this for a number of reasons, but a major one is the SCCA PTBs historical insistence on refusing to make a standard and stick with it, and the resultant messes that our classes become. (Look at IT to see all the work it took to get back to actual performance envelopes for each class, now imagine if those were thrown away and classing was done as it was, on hunches, feelings and arguments).
Secondly, constituents will have no reason to even THINK there can be any monkeying around with the request. it won't be subject to a certain committee persons bias.

[Greg Amy]

Chris, I think that's a good first step. (But why only JDM?)

He actually requested "non-USDM". I think we tend to revert to using a generic "JDM" (yo!) for everything not-US, like "Kleenex".

I hope the STAC takes the time to sit down and before the request letter arrives, creates a policy that describes what they will require to allow any request...

Nothing will happen on this issue without significant membership input.

GA

[Rabbit07]

Here was my request.

"
Letter #3798
Title: Include Non USDM Engines
Request: Please include non US Market engines. I suggest that these engine packages be approved on a case by case basis. Require a VTS to be generated and that those packages can only run by that "STU" VTS. Competitors will be required to sumit documentation to support requested classifications."

I did this to officalize it and get it into the system. Keep in mind that this was my suggestion, not writen into law. My thinking is that all non US Market engine packages would need to have a VTS, just like an ex WC touring car.

[lateapex911]

So it's for STU only?

That seems to fail to help fix the most glaring issue of the ST category, the apparent lack of diverse options for competitive STL cars, and allowing SOME diversity for STL could have helped in that regard.

[Greg Amy]

CRB hath spoken thusly:


July Fastrack:
1. #3798/#4256/4259 (Christopher Childs/ Josh Baldwin/Matt Blehm) Include Non-USDM Engines Non-USDM engines will not be permitted in ST due to limited availability of some non-USDM engines and difficulties in compliance enforcement.

[lateapex911]

Regarding the compliance aspect, I was under the impression that only engines with full tech specs would be approved. So I'm not understanding how they can object from a compliance standpoint.

The lack of supply is a reason I hadn't thought of. My (very general) impression was that USDM engines were often more rare than non USDM engines. I'm sure certain units are rare, of course.