Legality of crank swaps

[Greg Amy]

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.

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

[Mrsideways]

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

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 =

[Greg Amy]

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...[with a Frankenstein] for the same price as a bellhousing I can...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.

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

[Gary L]

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.

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.

[Matt93SE]

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.

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?

[Mrsideways]

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

Greg.... 2 things I'm against Wide Open non-usdm engines because it makes to many options that lots don't think about. I'm afraid of unrestricted engine swaps from throughout the world cause someone might keep it a secrete and show up at the runoffs with a ringer. But I'm ok with it on a CASE by CASE basis just like the frankenstien motors. 2nd I also was under the impression that the SR20 was an approved swap for the Nissan's and that this wouldn't effect that because it has already been approved.

[Greg Amy]

Greg.... 2 things I'm against Wide Open non-usdm engines because it makes to many options that lots don't think about.

...and others are against Frankenstein engines because it makes too many options that many don't think about.

But I'm ok with it on a CASE by CASE basis just like the frankenstien motors.

...and we actually proposed case by case allowance of JDM engines with supporting documentation so it can be classified properly.

See how that all works...?

I also was under the impression that the SR20 was an approved swap for the Nissan's and that this wouldn't effect that because it has already been approved.

The US-spec SR20DE is approved to be fitted into any Nissan chassis. However, that engine - the one I ran in my ITA NX2000 - only came with 140 ponies stock for the USA; our market never got the 189hp variable valve lift (VVL, kinda like VTEC) SR20VE, nor did the US market get the turbocharged version SR20DET. Ergo, without allowances to run non-USDM-spec engines, neither of those engines is compliant to be transplanted into an STU car; competitors are stuck with the 140hp baseline engine only.

GA

[Mrsideways]

...and others are against Frankenstein engines because it makes too many options that many don't think about.

...and we actually proposed case by case allowance of JDM engines with supporting documentation so it can be classified properly.

See how that all works...?

The US-spec SR20DE is approved to be fitted into any Nissan chassis. However, that engine - the one I ran in my ITA NX2000 - only came with 140 ponies stock for the USA; our market never got the 189hp variable valve lift (VVL, kinda like VTEC) SR20VE, nor did the US market get the turbocharged version SR20DET. Ergo, without allowances to run non-USDM-spec engines, neither of those engines is compliant to be transplanted into an STU car; competitors are stuck with the 140hp baseline engine only.

GA

Greg, I don't understand why your blasting me for an opinion. When you right in for rule changes or opinions your not thinking of others. After all they are your competition right? It's like Voting for the other guy in an election. When you write in you think of one person YOU. No one writes in asking for weight off the cars of their competition right? Great the Nissan guys get 140hp. But it sure appears by the Fastrac that I'm the only letter. I can think of a Nissan V6 that could be made to fit with less trouble then I'm gonna have graphting in an Acura RDX engine.
Also my responce to the Non-USDM engines was as a responce to not being allowed to build the stroker motor which was shot down BEFORE I wrote in. And My frankenmotor is ALL USDM parts which IMO is easier to police then Non-USDM motors. However I've come to the exceptance that it won't happen.
If were talking cheap and easy.... allow bolt on Turbo/Superchargers with restrictors for cars that can't make the hp and call it a day. Super Easy to Police then.

[Greg Amy]

Ian, I don't intend to "blast" you, I'm simply pointing out your inconsistencies. And I totally disagree with your assertion that "everyone" writes in thinking only of themselves. Requests should be considered as to how they affect the category/class as a whole, not whether they help or hurt one particular car/driver.

On edit: While the response was light, letters regarding allowing non-USDM engines was overwhelmingly in favor. The STAC recommended allowing non-USDM engines to the CRB. The CRB rejected the recommendation. So, if it were actually put to a "democratic" vote, it would have passed...

GA

[Mrsideways]

Ian, I don't intend to "blast" you, I'm simply pointing out your inconsistencies. And I totally disagree with your assertion that "everyone" writes in thinking only of themselves.

Requests should be considered as to how they affect the category/class as a whole, not whether they help or hurt one particular car/driver.

GA

I somewhat disagree. I think it's the CRB's job to take the requests and apply the idea to how they effect the overall class and keep someone from getting an unfair advantage.

[Chip42]

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.

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.

[Greg Amy]

to tech, it's a nightmare.

This is becoming more and more obvious. We're getting legitimate questions from experienced scrutineers who are confused by the category. I'm hoping that our proposed philosophy will sufficiently address that.

GA

[JS154]

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?

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.

[Matt93SE]

JS154, thanks for the update and clarification. I was 10000% sure that thing had a turbo from the sound of it flying by me on the straight.

[dhrmx5]

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.

[JS154]

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.

...and has to use stock cams. That will never be a competitive engine in STU with that restriction/requirement.

[Greg Amy]

...and has to use stock cams.

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

[Z3_GoCar]

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.

[Greg Amy]

Then what about the S-54 3.2l motor that's currently classed in STO? Will it be legal for STU at that point?

All 3.2L engines will be allowed in STU in 2012. This car will then be dual-classed in STU and STO, different prep levels, different weights.

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.

Warts and all. We can't promise everyone will be competitive, and the class gives you flexibility to find your preferred combo.

If this engine over-performs to our class targets, it will either get excluded from STU (see: ITR and S2000 engines in STL) or it will get weight. - GA

On edit: if you think the engine will over-perform relative to all other choices, then please do send in a request to exclude the engine, with appropriate supporting information. That info should include supporting data on what the output capability of the engine can be within the STU regs (or reasonably close) and why you believe that's more than the existing cars in the class.

[JS154]

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.

Software tuining only on the S54 is shown below. 100 octane race gas is well-settled to allow 8more hp on the S54 engine as well. And that's just a tune and gas. No headers, compression or cam bumps, nothing.

The S54 engine has no business being in STU.