I've been trying to get this approved to put a Acura TSX rotating assembly in an S2000 block. So far it's a no go. The engine swap to the TSX motor or better yet a RDX motor is a lot of work and a lot of $$$$ custom made parts.
Member
I've been trying to get this approved to put a Acura TSX rotating assembly in an S2000 block. So far it's a no go. The engine swap to the TSX motor or better yet a RDX motor is a lot of work and a lot of $$$$ custom made parts.
Ian
#16 STU S2000 with a K24(and still over weight)
Senior Member
Last I checked, you are on the side of all USDM, why would you suggest that frankensteins be allowed and be against JDM swaps???Originally Posted by Mrsideways
UNRELATED to Ian's post: second COA ruling in 6/11 Fastrack supports my (many) previous statements about ST being too confusing for the old guard / disinterested in tech. the IT in ST allowance causes too much confusion. I would agree that it should not, but people understand what they want to (see history of religious wars). the fact that the protested items were not at least documented in as raced condition is shameful. CoT should have points on his license.
Administrator
Agree; I found it quite interesting (I'd not heard of it prior to Fastrack publication and have no other knowledge of it).
However, my take on what little info is offered is that the guy brought a World Challenge car to a National event assuming it was automatically approved for STU competition (as it was in 2010). We know, though, that all WC cars must be individual requested, weighted, and approved for use in STU. So what I think happened is that when he got protested, he took a different tack and said, "OK, so let's call it an ITR car". The SOMs said OK, he's good. But the protester realized (later, I guess) that the car was ineligible for ITR, so he appealed.
The Court of Appeals agreed that the car was ineligible for ITR. However, they noted the car had a 3L engine, which is STU-eligible. They overturned the SOMs and said (correctly) that the car was eligible for the open STU rules. In the end, depending on level of mods the car *may* actually be non-compliant to the STU rules but it was never inspected to that end; since they did not have the info needed to determine that, and the car on its face was eligible, the Court of Appeals overturned the Stewards and the protestee's finishing position stands.
IMO, based on what info it had, they ruled correctly. I would not be surprised to see another equipment protest in the near future...or maybe the protestee will send us VTS and request a specific WC allowance.
But yes, Chip, I agree that all these various allowances can be confusing. However, in this example I'd not blame the IT allowance; I think the ITR allowance was trying to be used as a loophole... - GA
Senior Member
We're all speculating here, but ... I doubt the car was an ex-WC car, since it apparently didn't have driveshaft straps.
And the fact that an '04 IS300 isn't listed in ITR is correct, but it's really an oversight, the years should have been extended to include the '03-'05 (and really should disallow the '01, since it never came with a manual transmission.)
In other words, what the owner should have tried is, "Okay, let's call it an '02, not an '04, and it's prepped to the ITR rules." That might have worked.
Last edited by JoshS; 06-22-2011 at 03:50 PM.
Josh Sirota
ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe
Administrator
Makes sense, esp. given no VIN requirements. Then again, by the time he left the track, he thought he was "approved" as an ITR, so maybe that's what they did?
So I wonder what REALLY happened...? If anyone knows these guys, I'd like to hear the real story...and get the car properly classified.
Ian, as noted before, we've debated Frankensteins and/or setting general prep/performance technical equipment limits as you describe above. I just don't think the Club has the stomach for that right now. and I'd suggest that if you're "for" that kinda ideal, then JDM engines are no big panacea, it's all same idea.
GA
Member
Greg I know it's been sidelined so it's not something I'm expecting. But JDM does nothing for my car as Honda makes no other engine/tranny combo to go in the car with ease so JDM helps me none. I know it's a selfish thought but it is what it is.
The Frankenstein motor is not only somewhat common in the S2000 world it's also FAR cheaper then any other option for making hp as I see the car being down about 70hp from where it needs to be in STU and talking to many in the S2000 community I'm not only wasting money building it the most I'll gain in the rule set is 10... MAYBE 15hp for the exact same amount of money I'd have in doing the K24 crankshaft into the thing and make 40-50 + a bunch of torque.
The problem with an engine swap are many (on top of the cost of building one of those engines).
Doing the TSX engine requires getting an adapter plate made between engine and tranny, Custom Flywheel and clutch setup, Custom engine mounts, Custom exhaust manifold. And then using the stock intake (which I'm not entirely convinced will actually bolt up to the K series Head).
Doing the RDX engine (the way I would go) gets a Turbo motor in the car however it's a smaller turbo then the SR20 guys get in the 240sx and no one has really messed with the RDX so can it even make the power? Also bring gearing into the question in which case I'd probably go with a 5sp Tremec and a custom bellhousing, custom driveshaft, again custom clutch etc etc etc. It's Big Bucks. Custom Bellhousing quote alone was near $2000.
So why am I interesed in the Frankenstein Motor... Cause for the same price as a bellhousing I can have all the parts here to build a motor in a couple of weekends and drop it in the car and be racing vs spending 6 or more months with the car down trying to fab up custom stuff.
Bolt in =
Last edited by Mrsideways; 06-22-2011 at 04:55 PM.
Ian
#16 STU S2000 with a K24(and still over weight)
Administrator
Allow me some leeway without taking offense - certainly none intended - but what you describe above illustrates EXACTLY why we do not always put things up for democratic votes, and why we need leadership able to see the 30,000-foot view to make these decisions.
I don't know if you realize it (though I think you may), but here's what I just read:
- I don't want you to have access to cheaper and potentially more powerful JDM engines because it does not benefit me, and
- I want myself to have access Frankenstein engines because it benefits me by making engine choice cheaper for more power.
Yes at the same exact time, people above you just said:
- I want us to have access to JDM engines because it benefits me by making engine choice cheaper for more power.
...and you damned them for, effectively, being so selfish!
See the dichotomy?
Making the right choices involves compromise for all. But if we stick to changes that only benefit ourselves yet reject those that benefit others, then nobody gets anything. Yet if you support their JDM engines while asking them to support your Frankenstein engines, then it's quite possible all will benefit.
These are the kind of leadership choices we have to make. If I were king, we'd have both. But because of resistance as you yourself describe above, I can pretty much predict we'll get neither.
It can't just be "all about me", dude.
GA
Senior Member
If this is the same Ron Pawley IS300 mentioned in another thread...
https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=29325 (post #13)
...the car apparently has a turbocharger. That would make putting it in ITR a little silly, eh? If there is a turbo, that might explain the mention of a missing restrictor plate in the protest.
Last edited by Gary L; 06-23-2011 at 12:49 AM. Reason: clarification of last statement
Senior Member
I assume you're talking about Ron Pawley in his IS300 at the TMS race in May or so?
there's a few things I heard/saw with that race..
1. That car is an ex-Grand Am car from what I can gather. I never saw results from him in World Challenge, but I see results from an IS300 in Grand Am.
2. Being a turbo, that means it has a 2JZ from a Supra in it, assuming it was swapped early.
3. Grand Am supposedly lists different restrictor sizes for each track, and I heard something about Grand Am cars being allowed to run in WC-TC, and since they're 'eligible for WC-TC', then it was assumed it would be allowed in STU as-is.
4. The car was protested as soon as it rolled off the track- I'm not privy to exactly what the protest was but basically "it's too fast. check the restrictor. oh and he's running Hoosiers on a World Challenge car. if he doesn't have a restrictor in it, then he's running world challenge rules and he has to run R888s not Hoosiers."
5. less than 1hr after the Sat race, he packed up his car and left the track. He was leaving the track while I was still rotating tires and checking the car after the race.
6. I STILL don't have times on mylaps.com for that race. :mad:
That tells me he either: 1) only planned to enter the Sat race (at a dbl nat? don't think so.) or 2) knew the car wasn't legal in some way shape or form and got caught and was sent packing.
I'll bug the Stewards about it next time I talk to them. Most of the stewards in the area have been around a while and are quote possibly confused with the STU rules and crossovers.
At the June race at TWS, I asked Larry Svaton about the issue and was given the grand am doesn't require restrictors mumbo jumbo... but WTF does grand am have to do with STU or WC-touring?
Houston Region
STU Nissan 240SX
EProd RX7
Senior Member
I'm not 100% up on grandam, and they could have changed their rules since, but I can't think of a time when motor swaps were allowed there. the info about GA/WC crossover is nice, but like you said, irrelevent.
to us it's simple: was a VTS submitted to the STAC, approved and on the chart? no? then it's a standard STU car with turbo, weight determined by inlet diameter or inlet restrictor.
to tech, it's a nightmare.
Senior Member
The car in question is an actual ex-World Challenge car, Tim Pappas' specifically. info in this thread> http://my.is/forums/f47/my-interview...racing-296978/
The VTS sheet does not list a turbo. http://www.world-challenge.com/inclu...8992ec529beab8
It does not show up on Table B in the September rules on the SCCA website as of this writing.
Last edited by JS154; 08-31-2011 at 10:30 PM.
Member
Because where does it stop in terms of JDM, GDM, Forumla one Motors etc etc. Frankenstiens are still policeable, whats your compression, whats your bore and stroke... Done. Or just allow any crank with that stroke, piston speeds are so mad your not going to be able to turn it up more with a stronger crank so it won't matter. I think I'd be ok with JDM swaps on a Case by Case basis. But the first thing that came to mind was an RB26 into a 240sx or a 3rotor in a Miata, Or the EURO E36 M3 3.0L in some sort of tiny light BMW. Or and this would be neat but a focus RS in a Fiesta. What's to stop one of these things from being undercover till the day before the runoffs and showing up as a "you forgot about this idea" 400whp monster.
Last edited by Mrsideways; 06-22-2011 at 04:06 PM.
Ian
#16 STU S2000 with a K24(and still over weight)
Junior Member
The M3 3.0 bmw in a light weight chassis would still have to weigh 3300 lbs. The 3 rotor isn't allowed in STU.
There are already 400hp capable cars in STU. They are called Evos and GXPs.
Senior Member
...and has to use stock cams. That will never be a competitive engine in STU with that restriction/requirement.
Administrator
How do you figure? There is no build restriction placed on any 3.0L BMW engine in STU. The E36 M3 3.2L engine has to run stock cam lift (not stock cams) this year because the class displacement limit is currently 3L; however, that engine will be allowed to run uncorked next year (@3520# pounds) when we raise the displacement limit to 3.2 liters for 2012...
I believe our plan is to leave that current engine build restriction in Table A for 2012 to accommodate a Spec E36 classing request, so you can build it either way, whichever you prefer. - GA
Senior Member
Then what about the S-54 3.2l motor that's currently classed in STO?
Will it be legal for STU at that point? You let the S-52 with it's crappy stock intake manifold in and by opening it up to all 3.2l motors you'll get the S-54 with it's individual throttle body intake manifold and ability to rev to 9k rpm.
STU BMW Z3 2.5liter
Senior Member
Correct on wording regarding stock camshaft LIFT.
BMW E36 M3 (95-99) max displ 3200 min weight 3200
Engines are permitted 0.040 overbore, 0.5
point increase in compression.
Engines must use the OEM camshaft lift.
'95 was the 3.0L
'96-99 was the 3.2l
With that table, is there anything stopping someone from dropping a 3.2L S54 into an E36 M3 right now, overboring and bumping compression 0.5?
The only limit is on max displacement it seems, for the E36M3, which is a chassis. Nothing stopping anyone from putting a built S50 (3.0L USDM engine) into an E30 bmw and going nutzo with cams and upping compression and such...that will be 290 at the wheels easy in that case.
If this isn't class creeep I don't know what is. If that's the intent, so be it, but it would be wise then to also do something along the lines like make STL a National class and bump the displacment limit to under 2500cc, to give all the current STU cars. Or perhaps just leave the class alone for a little while. Rules stability is important, lack of rules stability was a huge problem for BMW CR for a number of years and the result was significantly declining participation from 2002-2007.
Increasing the class displacement limit to 3.2L is solving what problem that presently exists? That opens the door to the E46 M3 with the S54 engine and the Acura NSX with the C32B engine, just off the top of my head.
Senior Member
SpecE36 (BMW CR) already fits in STU, stock 2.5-2.8L engines, stock brakes and transmissions at just under 2700# IIRC. A great car for ITR, and a field filler for STU even at it's present weight. with the 1.1 ratio it will become a backmarker in STU.
Well prepped and well driven they turn high 2:13's low 2:14's at the Glen, which is 5-6 seconds/lap off this years STU leaders.
Last edited by JS154; 09-08-2011 at 12:58 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks