STL engine builds?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks Andy. And I'll take your advice and just forget the whole thing.

If I may ask, is this coming from the CRB (or BOD) or from the STAC?

It's coming from me. Just read the threads on this board and others and form your own opinion. I have NOTHING to do with this class if you thought I did.

Chris: 181whp is pretty damn close to your 100hp/L target at the 1.8L weight. Why assign it the 2.0L weight? (forgetting for a second that somewhere it is written this is a piston-based class). Besides, IT-built 1.8L GSR Teg motors are already at that target - BEFORE additional STL prep allowances. The HondAcura powerplant clearly exceeds the target yet the 13B is saddled into no-mans land.

Wait, are the class targets based on WHP or crank HP? Has to be WHP or else the Teg is around 120hp/liter at the crank assuming 185whp on the light side.

[Rabbit07]

The numbers are Crank.

On the Honda's remember the cam lift limits. The GSR is close even stock and the K20 is over the Limit. This was intentional.

It is impossible to see every possible combination that could come out of this. What really ticks me off is all the negitive talk about how it's a Honda class, and it's a FWD class. I am seriously looking at building a 99 Miata for STL. I see no reason why this car couldn't run with Greg's GSR. I still think a DOHC Neon can make the power needed to compete. I also like the M42 BMW, but don't want to build an E30 (too old).

[Z3_GoCar]

I also like the M42 BMW, but don't want to build an E30 (too old).

A well executed e46 should get close to 2340lbs with composite hood and trunk allowances and reduced wire harness. I know for a fact that the M42 swap would not be difficult to perform in a race car, heck the same transmission was used in the 325 version.

[lateapex911]

Chris, I'm either hopeful or skeptical, LOL.

To ME, it's a specific power class. if you can make a lot of power for the displacement, you have a good start. Adda decent chassis, and you can compete.

Since cams are limited, (equalized across all manufacturers) and displacement (vis a vis weight) and compression are limited (and equalized, essentially), and exhausts are free, (therefore equalized) it comes down to the head flow and intake.

So, knowing that, what ARE the potential candidates?
My list:
Various Hondas (I can't keep the numbers straight). But the 1.8 in the Teg and the CRX motor seem to be 'breathers' that can hit the targets.
Mazda?? Can a 1.6 make 160? or the 1.8 make 180???
Toyota? Hmmmm, not familiar with any that have any real hope, but maybe I missed one.
BMW. You say an M42. (whats that?)
Nissan?
Dodge: You say a Neon motor? 2.0L? Is that the 150Hp stock one?
Then Subarus new 2.0 170hp flat four maybe?

So the short list in my mind: (with your suggestions: Hondas, Dodge 2.0, BMW M42, Mazda, and Subaru.

For chassis, I guess it's a Miata, Neon, CRX, Integra, Civic, and maybe the new Toyobaru BRZ/FRS?

What else?

Non starters:
Rotaries: here's the conflict I see. The 13B in ITS form runs with the Teg in ITS form, making 180WHP max. But in STL the Teg gets more allowances. So, if the second gen 13B weight is correct in STL, then are you (the STAC saying that you expect STL to be about ITS speed? (and obviously, we could deduce you all think the Tegs classification in ITS is too heavy)
I'm trying to get creative and think of others. Alfas? Hmmm, some interesting choices, but I THINK they are all too old. Porsche? All the 911s are too big displacement. All the others are too old except for the 924, with it's 2.0L but, that will never make the power.

So, what else is there guys?

And:
What do we expect to see at the wheels for:
The CRX engine?
The Teg engine?*
The Miata engine?**
The neon engine?
The BMW M42?

*Edit: Thanks Kevin. Your build (LP Prod) sounds close to STL. And you're saying you make between 150 and 195. But not 150 and certainly not 195. **And for giggles, ISC says an ITA Miata will make "around 135" at teh wheels in ITA trim. So, thats about 165 crank. Is that fair? If so, will it gain 15 in STL build?

[Z3_GoCar]

M42's for the e30 318 from '90-'91.
Metric Mechanic claims about 170hp, for their sports 2000 motor:
http://www.metricmechanic.com/pdfs/m...ne-booklet.pdf
the 87mm pistons are more than the allowed +1mm, the head's been ported, and I've not checked the max lift spec. So, for the M42 it's a qualified maybe. The newer M44 is out because it's got one of those dual length intake manifolds (same as the 4AGE) that'll never make much more than stock power.

[lateapex911]

M42's for the e30 318 from '90-'91.
Metric Mechanic claims about 170hp, for their sports 2000 motor:
http://www.metricmechanic.com/pdfs/m...ne-booklet.pdf
the 87mm pistons are more than the allowed +1mm, the head's been ported, and I've not checked the max lift spec. So, for the M42 it's a qualified maybe. The newer M44 is out because it's got one of those dual length intake manifolds (same as the 4AGE) that'll never make much more than stock power.

Hmmm, well, the 170 is for a 2.0L motor. And, there's a LOT in there that won't fly. As you say, the heads ported (6% better flow according to them), they're using non stock rods, pistons, valves, valve springs and more.

So, if thats the best I think it's an uphill battle at 2665lbs.... compared to a CRX at say 600 pounds less,

[Greg Amy]

To ME, it's a specific power class.

That's not an opinion, Jake, it's an overt, effectively-written-to-the-regs fact. It's intentional, and you'd have to be blind to not see it.

- The whole category is engine-centric (go read the STO rules, see where it compensates weight for chassis.)
- Weight is based solely on displacement.
- There is no attempt, nor even an implied attempt, to make various engines equally competitive.
- Ergo, the engine with the highest power-to-displacement ("specific horsepower") will have the advantage. Some will win, many will lose.

That is the CORE of Super Touring. No ifs, ands, or butts.

The Honda 1,8L B18B1 (single-cam engine) won't make as much power as the Honda 1,8L B18C1 (dual cam)? Shocked, I am. And there's no allowance for design of head/cams. So which engine you gonna pick? Does the Miata 1,8L makes higher specific horsepower than the Mazda 1,6L? So, which one you gonna pick?

What I'm reading here is a basic "rookie" mistake of trying to shoehorn a desired car/design into a set class. What you guys are doing is thinking "hey, I really like the prep rules of this class! And, I'm a big fan of the Borgward. Hmmm, how can I make this car work in this class? HEY, HOW COME YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE BORGWARDS????" Couple that to some egalitarian ideal that the rulesmakers should work to make all cars competitive, and it's a recipe for frustration.

That ain't Super Touring Light, folks. This ain't Title 9. It's like me saying, "man, I really like the way Spec Miata runs. Wonder if they'd classify my Integra?"

The regs are out there for you to see. There's nothing hidden. As with all forms of motorsport, don't make the rookie mistake of trying to shoehorn your preferred platform into them, read them for what they are, pick the best engine, and stuff it into the car that you think will work best.

Andy's "sarcasm strategy" to see if he can change our mind about what the class is all about, is, ironically, spot-on. If you read what the rules say, and not what you want them to say, you'll see that, in effect, he's pretty much spot-on. There's not even an attempt to hide the fact that this is a small-displacement class that will tend to cater to higher-specific-horsepower engines. And it's no coincidence that most of the available chassis are FWD simply because that's what kind of platforms you'll find these engines over the last 20 years. In that regard, it's a pretty unique class in SCCA. If you prefer bigger displacements and RWD, STU is a great class for that. If you're just a big fan of Big Bore, STO beckons (and could really use the entries.)

Pick the class, pick the engine, pick the chassis. Don't do it in reverse. Easy Peasy.

Oh, by the way, read my signature.

GA

P.S., Jake, the rotary engine is dead. Done, toast. It's so toasted that some Guatemalans are making a trek up here to visit your garage and do the rosary over the various shapes in the dirt on the housings. I can understand your frustration, though; some guys were asking how come we don't classify the steam engine, but we responded with "thank you for your input..."

P.P.S., By the way, that was a joke.

P.P.P.S., Read my signature.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Still don't get the lack of desire to properly class the 13B. It may be 'dead' but no more dead than anything else that is out of production. It's a non-starter. It's a PERFECT fit for the 1.8 weight.

Chris - help me understand the targets. If the math is supposed to be 100hp/L at the crank, I am not sure I am seeing what you are seeing. The Honda 1.8 VTEC's blow that number out of the water...Hit me with some examples of engines that actually hit the target please.

1.8VTEC: 185-190 whp. That's about 220 crank. That's 122hp per liter.
1.6VTEC: 160-165 whp. That's about 190 crank. That's 118hp per liter.

Or are we using stock numbers as a basis? That would be much closer. 160 for the 1.6, 170 for the 1.8....but that totally leaves everything else WAY down.

Help me understand. It's cold, my brain not worky.

[Greg Amy]

Still don't get the lack of desire to properly class the 13B.

In my opinion:
- Super Touring is a class that allows some engine modifications.
- The "some engine modifications" for rotaries is SCCA's "Street Port"*
- In "Street Port" configuration, the rotary engine is a Super Touring Under engine.

The rotary engine does not fit within the philosophy of Super Touring Light, regardless of whatever way you twist the numbers. STL is a sub-2-liter, piston engine class.

If you want to run the rotary, do it in STU or EProd.

GA

* SCCA Techical Services has a PDF that you can request that details what is involved in "Street Port". Basically, they limit how big you can port it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What I'm reading here is a basic "rookie" mistake of trying to shoehorn a desired car/design into a set class. What you guys are doing is thinking "hey, I really like the prep rules of this class! And, I'm a big fan of the Borgward. Hmmm, how can I make this car work in this class? HEY, HOW COME YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE BORGWARDS????" Couple that to some egalitarian ideal that the rulesmakers should work to make all cars competitive, and it's a recipe for frustration.

That ain't Super Touring Light, folks. This ain't Title 9. It's like me saying, "man, I really like the way Spec Miata runs. Wonder if they'd classify my Integra?"

I think the problem here Greg is that to the outsider, it's NOT a 'set class', meaning that it's a great engine-swap concept. What are the cool combinations? What is possible? How can I be fast and different? It's weight by displacement and anything goes within that displacement (with cam limits for a family). Nobody is asking for a 3.0 in STL, nobody is asking for anything that isn't very reasonable here. The concept that has been told to us, 'piston-based', is well known, but nobody sees any reason to not allow that motor in any other chassis than an RX-7 at an artificially high weight. It makes no sense, especially when it's a new class and it would open up so many more choices.

The regs are out there for you to see. There's nothing hidden. As with all forms of motorsport, don't make the rookie mistake of trying to shoehorn your preferred platform into them, read them for what they are, pick the best engine, and stuff it into the car that you think will work best.

Sort of. The whole FD RX-7 issue is scary. There is no wording and parameters around what chassis' are 'too good' and what are not. Arbitrary at best. Again, more closed doors.

Pick the class, pick the engine, pick the chassis. Don't do it in reverse. Easy Peasy.

Except that simply is not how a smart competitor, OR an enthusiast chooses a racecar. The NASA crowd pics the chassis and motor first, then finds a class. The SCCA racer pics the chassis, then the class, then preps the motor accordingly.

IMHO the order you have it in is a recipe for failure. People build and choose classes around cars, not motors (unless we are talking GT1 or something). Allowing modern engines in popular chassis - regardless of age - is the way to make this class sing.

The concept is so intriguing that it is generating this kind of thought, and it's a good thing. But the comments that are coming in are ones of potential competitors facing walls that nobody can see real reasons for them to be there.

Having been on many committees, I am sure a lot of this grey would be easily explained over a beer or 4 but it's not coming through yet here IMHO.

[Z3_GoCar]

Here's what I don't get, why ban the Honda F20 in STHonda (whoopse I mean STL)? If everything that's not a Honda is already not compettive; why make it appear that it may possibly have a chance? Just rename it ST Honda and Let Pete Cunningham have it all.

[Ron Earp]

Okay, so rotarties are not invited, period. I think that is a strategic mistake but it is stated STL is a sub-2L piston engine class.

But why let the ITS RX7 run at its ITS weight? Somewhere it was written the intent was to prevent poaching of ITS entries. That seems a bit counter-intuitive as the best way to prevent poaching ITS entries is to simply not allow the car to run in the class at all. Indeed, it is clear that class isn't receptive to rotary engines. Was the allowance made to bolster STL entries and get the class off the ground? Seems like a logical path to start a fledgling class although it could have an impact on existing classes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Okay, so rotarties are not invited, period. I think that is a strategic mistake but it is stated STL is a sub-2L piston engine class.

But why let the ITS RX7 run at its ITS weight? Somewhere it was written the intent was to prevent poaching of ITS entries. That seems a bit counter-intuitive as the best way to prevent poaching ITS entries is to simply not allow the car to run in the class at all. Indeed, it is clear that class isn't receptive to rotary engines. Was the allowance made to bolster STL entries and get the class off the ground? Seems like a logical path to start a fledgling class although it could have an impact on existing classes.

Of course it was Ron. Double dippers artificially raise entry numbers promoting National status. What we have to understand is that currently, it was an 'allowance', not intended to be competitive.

I don't get the 'poaching' thing either. I actually call BS. If the rules are better than IT and draw some people from another class, all you have done is created a better mouse-trap for that racer. What is that bad? Finally a National class that has very similar chassis prep rules to IT...it could be so big.

[Matt93SE]

Except that simply is not how a smart competitor, OR an enthusiast chooses a racecar. The NASA crowd pics the chassis and motor first, then finds a class. The SCCA racer pics the chassis, then the class, then preps the motor accordingly.

New class, new philosophy. Try something different for a change! you might just find out you like it!
If you get mad at SCCA, you can always go play in Performance Touring.

[Andy Bettencourt]

New class, new philosophy. Try something different for a change! you might just find out you like it!
If you get mad at SCCA, you can always go play in Performance Touring.

It doesn't work like that Matt. I either pick a class I like, then look for a car (like ITR) or I pick a car I like and look for a class. I don't pick an engine, then car. And I submit that in IT and NASA PT, it's very similar. Who are we trying to attract with a 'business' model like this? Guys who love their engines?

The sheer amount of motors that could provide the appropriate power to weight right now is VERY limited...and so will the class. I just don't see any way around it. Even if the Miata can make the HP one guy predicts, it's a two dog hunt. Profit? I think not.

Still want to understand the crank vs WHP target numbers. I don't get it.

[Chip42]

The Honda 1,8L B18B1 (single-cam engine) won't make as much power as the Honda 1,8L B18C1 (dual cam)?

all B engines are DOHC. the B18B1 is non VTEC with OK breathing. the C1 is VTEC with long ports and good torque (P72 head) the B16/17/18C5 have a very good flowing head (P30/PR3) and VTEC, the B18C5 has hand polished ports IIRC. There are also very good flowing non-USDM non VTEC heads, as Corey has mentioned. major geometry differences between 16/17/18 are in the stroke and RSR, while the 20 does increase the bore and has a number of block differences.

best intake is the B16A2/3 and 17, and B18C5.

the B20 is a "truck" motor for the most part and sometimes has crap vtec more like that in the conomy civics. this is why B18 head on B20 block setups are popular.

also, FWIW, there are 8, 12, and 16 valve versions of the D series, with VTEC only on the intake side of some 16 valve setups. all are SOHC except the D16A1 (1st gen 'teg) which is non VTEC. most of the VTEC setups in the D series are tuned for efficiency, the good ones are the Z6 (92-95 Si/EX) and the Y8 (96-00 EX), the Z6 having the better head. the best head in the bunch is probobly the D16A6 from the 88-91 CRX Si and 90-91 Civic EX and Si. Best intake is the Y8.

FWIW I think the MZR-LF 2.0L mazda motor stands a chance, but any platform it goes in will obviously be heavy. the 2ZZ-GE Yamaha/Toyota (Celica GTS, lotus Elise) should be strong, too. maybe a nissan SR-20DE. maybe.

pretty much nothing else has a chance in L, yet.

[Andy Bettencourt]

FWIW I think the MZR-LF 2.0L mazda motor stands a chance, but any platform it goes in will obviously be heavy. the 2ZZ-GE Yamaha/Toyota (Celica GTS, lotus Elise) should be strong, too. maybe a nissan SR-20DE. maybe.

pretty much nothing else has a chance in L, yet.

That 2.0L MZ I am willing to bet you is cammed beyond spec in order to make 205whp in Grand Am trim...AND it's a grenade. I can get the cam specs we are running now from Sunbelt. That GTS motor is legal? Thought it wasn't.

[JS154]

So, knowing that, what ARE the potential candidates?
My list:
Various Hondas (I can't keep the numbers straight). But the 1.8 in the Teg and the CRX motor seem to be 'breathers' that can hit the targets.
Mazda?? Can a 1.6 make 160? or the 1.8 make 180???
Toyota? Hmmmm, not familiar with any that have any real hope, but maybe I missed one.
BMW. You say an M42. (whats that?)
Nissan?
Dodge: You say a Neon motor? 2.0L? Is that the 150Hp stock one?
Then Subarus new 2.0 170hp flat four maybe?

So the short list in my mind: (with your suggestions: Hondas, Dodge 2.0, BMW M42, Mazda, and Subaru.

For chassis, I guess it's a Miata, Neon, CRX, Integra, Civic, and maybe the new Toyobaru BRZ/FRS?

So, what else is there guys?

And:
What do we expect to see at the wheels for:
The CRX engine?
The Teg engine?*
The Miata engine?**
The neon engine?
The BMW M42?

B16A2 has good power and a lower race weight.
--

BMW M42 won;t have the output to weight to compete with the Honda engines. It would be cool to drop one into an E30 M3 Chassis.

SVT Focus could be a player.

Isuzu/Geo Storm possibly

maybe an early mr2

all are going to have a hard time against the hondacuras and mazdas

perhaps limit max rpm for the class?

[lateapex911]

B16A2 has good power and a lower race weight.
--

BMW M42 won;t have the output to weight to compete with the Honda engines. It would be cool to drop one into an E30 M3 Chassis.

SVT Focus could be a player.

Isuzu/Geo Storm possibly

maybe an early mr2

all are going to have a hard time against the hondacuras and mazdas

perhaps limit max rpm for the class?

"Good power" is what??
An E30 M42 would be an expensive way to be non competitive! LOL
Early Mr2 would weigh about 2125. Not sure if it could get that low. But, even if it could the AW11 guys will tell you, I think, that there's no way that car can make 160Hp. IT versions struggle to hit 110....

[StephenB]

can any model Mazda RX? run a piston engine such as a miata engine and run in stl?

Stephen