Spec lines and variants of a car

[dickita15]

Well what is the definition of model or type? If I have an intake that was only made in 1979 and rear brakes that only came on 83-85 did I create a model? I do not think so.

[Greg Amy]

Well what is the definition of model or type? If I have an intake that was only made in 1979 and rear brakes that only came on 83-85 did I create a model? I do not think so.

Of course you did, Dick. You created a model of RX-7 with performance that the manufacturer never delivered from its factory.

That rule has existed in the IT regs for probably decades, and its purpose was to allow competitors to "upmarket" their car to match the specs of a higher-line model (that's on the same spec line). It was never intended to be able to create an aggregate ("frankenstein") model that provides greater performance than any other standalone factory-line model.

If you disagree, then what do you think is the purpose for that rule? If you disagree, and we're not following that intent, then simply make the moves to make that rule go away, because otherwise it's really doing absolutely nothing (and don't forget to adjust the IT "process" to account for that improved aggregate performance...)

Simply food for thought.

GA

[JeffYoung]

I have to agree with Greg.

The intent was for you to be able to take your 83 model whatever that came with carbs, and update it to the 84 model that was identical to the 83 except it had fuel injection.

Your 83 model then effectively became identical to the 84, and was no different than what was sold off the showroom floor in 84.

But if your 83 carb model also had a better gearbox that was discountinued in 84, what the rule was designed to prevent -- in my opinion -- was using the 83 gearbox with the 84 fuel injected motor.

That would create a car that you never could have bought off the showroom floor in 83, or in 84.

I don't know enough about the RX7s to say what exactly is going on with them. I've heard Andy say that essentially what every fast ITS RX7 is is a GTUs, and i have no reason to doubt him. If that is the case, then they are legal.

[dickita15]

While I respect there are limits on updating/backdating I have never thought they were anything like you are describing. Rereading the section the only thing I see you hanging your hat on in this argument is “it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies”
Words matter and I do not see it saying that you cannot combine the best attributes of the various years on the spec line to build the best car. It says you cannot create a model. The model in my example is a RX7. It says you cannot create a type. The type is a two seater coupe I guess. There is no definition in the GCR that refines the meaning.
Oh and Greg, I am jealous that you are able to divine the intent of this old rule, the rest of us have to read and interpret it.

[Greg Amy]

...the only thing I see you hanging your hat on in this argument is “it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies”

Correct.

Oh and Greg, I am jealous that you are able to divine the intent of this old rule, the rest of us have to read and interpret it.

Well, I do have the advantage of having been involved in Improved Touring since its inception...

But, again, I ask (rhetorically, if necessary): if you do not believe that sentence is to be interpreted as I describe, then what do you think it means? Because, honestly, I cannot "divine" any other intent...

If you think that sentence does nothing - or if we want it to do nothing - then simply send in a request to delete it.

GA

[Eagle7]

I have to agree with Greg.

The intent was for you to be able to take your 83 model whatever that came with carbs, and update it to the 84 model that was identical to the 83 except it had fuel injection.

Your 83 model then effectively became identical to the 84, and was no different than what was sold off the showroom floor in 84.

But if your 83 carb model also had a better gearbox that was discountinued in 84, what the rule was designed to prevent -- in my opinion -- was using the 83 gearbox with the 84 fuel injected motor.

That would create a car that you never could have bought off the showroom floor in 83, or in 84.

I don't know enough about the RX7s to say what exactly is going on with them. I've heard Andy say that essentially what every fast ITS RX7 is is a GTUs, and i have no reason to doubt him. If that is the case, then they are legal.

The 86-88 ITS RX-7 had 146 HP, while the 89-91 had 160 HP. The 89-91 also has some cosmetic differences in bumper covers and body panels. I think you're saying I can't run the 89-91 engine in my 86 without changing the body cosmetics.

[seckerich]

So there's no mix of S4/S5 parts in any RX-7? No advantageous combo of parts that was not otherwise available from Mazda off the factory line?

So someone can actually find, on a used car lot somewhere, that exact combination of long"block", intake, induction, fuel injection, and engine management (except as allowed otherwise by the ITCS) as everyone is running in their ITS RX7s?

Remember:



Ergo, if Mazda did not deliver that combo, it's not legal.

GA

In a word, yes. My car and all the ones I have worked on are 89-91 spec all the way and it is the fastest setup and the process weight was set for the high side of the power of that car.

Now I will play your word game. If the rule states that the motor, trans, induction must be updated as a complete assembly then they are different from the later/earlier original so were never delivered from the factory that way. They are specifically different because they may not interchange parts, but were allowed to be changed as entire assemblies. Until the vin rule all of these parts were illegal if we use your assumption because the XYZ motor does not match the vin. But the rules say we can install that longblock. I call that cut and dry that the assemblies could be matched. How do you explain it?

[RacerBill]

In a word, yes. My car and all the ones I have worked on are 89-91 spec all the way and it is the fastest setup and the process weight was set for the high side of the power of that car.

Now I will play your word game. If the rule states that the motor, trans, induction must be updated as a complete assembly then they are different from the later/earlier original so were never delivered from the factory that way. They are specifically different because they may not interchange parts, but were allowed to be changed as entire assemblies. Until the vin rule all of these parts were illegal if we use your assumption because the XYZ motor does not match the vin. But the rules say we can install that longblock. I call that cut and dry that the assemblies could be matched. How do you explain it?

I agree with Steve. I believe that the intent of the rule was to allow us to use a 1984 motor in a 1983 car. Just to use an example, if I could find a 1984 Shelby Charger, I would want to use that engine since it is rated at 110hp as opposed to 107 for the 1983 (nobody can explain why the difference since all the components and dimentions were the same). But the rules do not say that if I use the 84 engine, then I need to use an 84 transmission.

Are there any examples of the kind of differences proposed here (carb and fuel injection on the same spec line). I would think that this much of a difference would warrant unique spec lines in the ITCS - we do see a lot of that ie in ITR. Ford Mustang (99-04) vs Ford Mustang (05-06).

I really don't think that there are the issues that we are arguing about. I believe that the spec lines take care of these potential issues. If they don't, we need to update the spec lines.

And I do agree that the rule should not allow the creating of outlandish, off the wall models.

[Ron Earp]

I can see both sides of it.

My take on it was I was not allowed to mix and match parts to make something that didn't exist. My original question is on the Mustang and convertibles, so I'll use that car as my example.

94-98 Mustangs are all on the same spec line.

However, while gross specs like horsepower, wheelbase, brakes, etc. didn't change during those years some other little things did. 94-95 cars have a different rod ratio than 96-98 cars. 96-98 cars have changed with heads and blocks/block sealing than 94-95 cars. 96-98 cars used a slightly different valvetrain parameter. 94-95 cars do not have the same cam as the 96-98 cars.

So I could not build a motor like this:

*94-95 crank and rods
*96-98 block
*96-98 heads/valve train
*94-95 cam

as Ford never delivered such an engine in a Mustang during the 94-98 model run.

[seckerich]

I can see both sides of it.

My take on it was I was not allowed to mix and match parts to make something that didn't exist. My original question is on the Mustang and convertibles, so I'll use that car as my example.

94-98 Mustangs are all on the same spec line.

However, while gross specs like horsepower, wheelbase, brakes, etc. didn't change during those years some other little things did. 94-95 cars have a different rod ratio than 96-98 cars. 96-98 cars have changed with heads and blocks/block sealing than 94-95 cars. 96-98 cars used a slightly different valvetrain parameter. 94-95 cars do not have the same cam as the 96-98 cars.

So I could not build a motor like this:

*94-95 crank and rods
*96-98 block
*96-98 heads/valve train
*94-95 cam

as Ford never delivered such an engine in a Mustang during the 94-98 model run.

And the definition of "longblock" stops all those variables and allows you to run any of those as a package, no changing parts like cams. Induction may be swapped but no rule allows you to modify the stock induction to fit if not a bolt on.

[Greg Amy]

Until the vin rule all of these parts were illegal if we use your assumption...

Incorrect. Even when the VIN rule was in effect, you could change matching assemblies to that of another car on the spec line, regardless of the engine code in the VIN. That is a specific allowance in the rules.

What I am referring to is a sentence that specifically disallows creating a combination of parts that was never, ever made available from the factory. Using today's vernacular, you are not allowed to create a "Frankenstein" car.

...if I could find a 1984 Shelby Charger, I would want to use that engine since it is rated at 110hp as opposed to 107...But the rules do not say that if I use the 84 engine, then I need to use an 84 transmission.

Is there a difference between the transaxles? If so, then rules do specifically say you are not allowed to create that combination. You can't just pick one of those rules in lieu of all others, you have to take them both in context and in consideration of all other allowances/restrictions.

I can see both sides of it.

Ding.

And yet, I ask once again: if not what I'm describing, what other plausible way can you interpret (e.g., "divine") that sentence? No one has yet to offer a reasonable alternative suggestion. I'm open to alternate thoughts.

Change the rules to delete that sentence that's been there from the get go (that we've apparently been choosing to ignore). Or follow it, matters not to me. But in the end, if you allow competitors to ignore that rule, you're effectively saying we can pick and choose which rules we want to follow.

GA

[dickita15]

Change the rules to delete that sentence that's been there from the get go (that we've apparently been choosing to ignore). Or follow it, matters not to me. But in the end, if you allow competitors to ignore that rule, you're effectively saying we can pick and choose which rules we want to follow.

GA

Now climb back down here, no one is saying to ignore the rule. I have seen plenty of folks do the motor part mix and match like Jeff was saying and of course that is illegal and I have called people out on it, but saying you cannot create a model is not the same as saying you cannot create a Frankenstein.

[Greg Amy]

...but saying you cannot create a model is not the same as saying you cannot create a Frankenstein.

I'm becoming redundant - and repeating myself, too - but then what does that sentence mean to you?

Short of a reasonable alternate "divination" of that sentence we're at an impasse: I say it means "x", you say it doesn't. But yet no one has offered an alternative to "x" other than "no it doesn't". It's almost like this sentence has been invisible for two decades, and we're suddenly seeing it (which, trust me, has happened to me more than once).

Those words means something; it's up to you to figure it out. Or change it.

GA

[Chip42]

Pardon my ignorance, but if update/backdate is not itself the intent - to allow later assemblies (update) from the specline to be used with older assemblies or in older cars or vice versa (backdate) - than what is the point of having that statement at all? I've always read this rule to say that, for example, a late model induction could be attached to a early model long block in any year body from the spec line, so long as all parts are from that model and that specline. If the intention is otherwise, than the statement needs to be reworded - updating does not to me, and apparently many others, mean "newer but identical assembly," but "newer, different assembly used in later cars of the same trim and body style on this specline."

I would think that the same would apply to transmissions and bodywork. thoguh I would say in the case of the latter that the full model year's body should be together. I would agree that parts and assemblies specific to a certain body type would be allowed only with that body.

the VIN rule was, to me, a way to keep a car from being converted to a different model - i.e. a civic DX from becoming a Civic Si. I wasn't privy to any of the decisions revolving around removal of this rule, but I assumed it has more to do with the lack of differences when prepared to the ITCS.

[seckerich]

The rule does not say motor, trans, induction must all be updated as a group. It spells them all out individually for a reason would you not agree? Damn, is it winter already?

[jumbojimbo]

...I'm becoming redundant - and repeating myself, too - but then what does that sentence mean to you? ...GA

The explanation I have seen (probably here) is that the wording was intended to keep people from using coupe bodywork on hatchback cars and other similar "MODEL" or "TYPE" combinations. Hence the workds "MODEL" and "TYPE".

IE, 84-86 Civic DX can use anything from any 84-86 DX civic (IE, headlight assemblies) but you can't start putting HF parts on it (lighter bumper) and you can't use coupe parts on your hatchback (fenders that almost fit).

Not that I know jack, but there are other explanations that make as much sense that it is ok to update/backdate but you can't update/backdate.

[Knestis]

Pardon my ignorance, but if update/backdate is not itself the intent - to allow later assemblies (update) from the specline to be used with older assemblies or in older cars or vice versa (backdate) - than what is the point of having that statement at all? I've always read this rule to say that, for example, a late model induction could be attached to a early model long block in any year body from the spec line, so long as all parts are from that model and that specline. ...

FWIW, this has always been my understanding. Absent any consensus, and recognizing the inherent contradiction between the statements in that clause...

...I've just ignored the problem. :026:

Seriously though, I've long felt that the ITAC controlled, through spec line listings, what latitude for swapping parts they thought was OK and what was a stretch too far. I took that to heart during deliberations while I was on the committee. I have maybe spent too much time looking at FIA rallying where cars are homologated to a set of specific parts, but I view the spec line as defining "model or type" and the prohibition against creating a one that doesn't exist simply a restatement that updating/backdating can create a "model or type" NOT defined by the spec line is NOT OKAY.
K

[JeffYoung]

Interesting thought. So your way around this is to say the word "model" in this definition:

Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.

Means what is on the spec line? But aren't those the same thing, rendering the language surplusage?

Let me try to say that more clearly. We only allow updating and backdating amongst year models on the same spec line. That's sort of the general overarching rule. And if you define "model" in that last sentence to mean anything on the spec line, doesn't that mean that last sentence doesn't add anything?

I am still with Greg that the intent of the rule was to prevent you from creating something the factory didn't offer. On the other hand, it was to allow you to take an 83 model and put on stuff from later cars in order to make your 83 model identical to the newer car.

But I am ambivalent about this. I know we have some examples of Frankencars out there, and now that I think about it adding the slightly lighter coupe bumpers to my car was probably not legal under MY OWN interpretation of this rule, but would be under others, but I do think the rule should reflect what we really want it to mean. And if it is to allow "Frankencars" I think we need to change that last sentence.

FWIW, this has always been my understanding. Absent any consensus, and recognizing the inherent contradiction between the statements in that clause...

...I've just ignored the problem. :026:

Seriously though, I've long felt that the ITAC controlled, through spec line listings, what latitude for swapping parts they thought was OK and what was a stretch too far. I took that to heart during deliberations while I was on the committee. I have maybe spent too much time looking at FIA rallying where cars are homologated to a set of specific parts, but I view the spec line as defining "model or type" and the prohibition against creating a one that doesn't exist simply a restatement that updating/backdating can create a "model or type" NOT defined by the spec line is NOT OKAY.
K

[JoshS]

Since the terms "update" and "backdate" are time-oriented terms, in my opinion, the purpose of the whole allowance is to allow mixing & matching of parts between model years of a single "model/type" ... thus allowing one sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple years) but disallowing a different sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple models/types).

The wording is definitely gray though.

[Chip42]

But I am ambivalent about this. I know we have some examples of Frankencars out there, and now that I think about it adding the slightly lighter coupe bumpers to my car was probably not legal under MY OWN interpretation of this rule, but would be under others, but I do think the rule should reflect what we really want it to mean. And if it is to allow "Frankencars" I think we need to change that last sentence.

I'd say coupe only bumpers are specifically NOT allowed on a drop top due to the explicit limitation on intra-body style UD/BD.

but at this point, if the rule wording were to be "tightened" to reflect Greg's (not to single you out) version, there would suddenly be a lot of illegal cars out there.

to go the other way might open up some unforseen process breakers. this is likely a small number and fixable once the "prime" setup is discovered and measured.