Blue Skying an STU Car

[23racer]

Greg et all, as some of you know a bit about my car and the difficulties it would have being transitioned to STU in its present development state, I wanted to run a directional concept by everyone for their opinion.

I have an ex-WC Cougar (click on the images link for pictures) with a firebreathing 2.5l motor in it (actually I have 2 with the spare). I can't reduce the compression without spending a ton of coin and still get a competitive HP level. Right now the car is making about 260 at the wheels. With the drivetrain swap rule and the 3.0L displacement limit, could I swap in a 3.0L Taurus engine (Sable if we want to keep it all Mercury)? Is it possible to use all the rest of the peripheral SVT 2.5L bits or do I have to use the complete 3.0L Taurus longblock including UIM and LIM.

This type of a swap would allow me to develop enough torque to haul around the extra 250 lbs I would need to add and meet target compression ratios. I know that I would need to send it in for approval, but it could be a solution that would allow me to run my car south of the border and have some fun with you guys.

Am I on a correct line of thinking or just plain messed up.

Eric

[Greg Amy]

Eric, I can't really offer much advice, simply because I don't know much about FoMoCo products outside the 1.6L Kent, the euro 2.0, and the 302 Windsor. So I'm not much help.

However, didn't we talk about getting you approved in a World Challenge VTS? Was it that it made the car too damn heavy?

Generally speaking, if you do an engine swap you have to use the longblock complete and the intake from either the engine or the car. You have some flexibility, but you need to ensure that all parts belong together.

GA

[23racer]

Greg, my WC VTS shows a car weight of 2500 lbs, a tire size of 245x40x17 and an allowable compression ratio of 12.8:1. I thought for STU, and I may be wrong, that I had to weigh somewhere in the 2850 lb range (big whoop), run a 235x40x17 tire (no big whoop) and bring my compression down to 11.0:1 (big $$$$ whoop) and get rid of my In-Car adjustable bars. Making these changes would cost me a ton of $$$$ and make the car uncompetitive in Canada where we still run to the older WC Touring Class rules, for the most part.

Philosophically for the class, if I was going to run a complete 3.0L Taurus engine then I would need to run a complete Taurus engine. I get it. I just need to figure out if I can make enough HP and Torque from one of those to be competitive in the class. The reason I am looking at the 3.0L is that I could use that motor in both countries and still be competitive without a ton of work. Bolting on 150 to 200 lbs of lead is an issue, but doable. The 3.0l option (if it can make competitive HP) allows me to do both. I guess I need to talk to some Duratec guys. nThanks.

Eric

[Greg Amy]

Eric, if you have a World Challenge VTS for that car, including the very latest Appendix A that the car was run on, submit that to the CRB and we will classify the car as-is, with existing mods, and a 5% weight penalty. Dyno sheets would be useful as a reality check, just in case the years you ran it don't match what we use now (2009 Appendix A).

If we approve this then you just need to conform to that VTS to be compliant to the regs.

Submit all that here:

http://www.crbscca.com

GA

[23racer]

Greg, I am sending you a copy of your response to me about the CRB via PM. I don't know if anything has changed, but I would be delighted if I could run the car as is with only a 125 lb penalty.

Eric

[Greg Amy]

Yes, I remember you were rejected on that very early 2011. The CRB changed it mind and now does allow us to consider WC Touring cars for STU, with appropriate VTS and Appendix A, and with a weight penalty.

Resubmit that, we'll reconsider it.

GA

[Rabbit07]

Ok, Let me try to get some back story here. A few years back the STAC looked at the future of STU and noticed that it wasn't likely going to be Ex-W/C cars. We know the class had started that way, but very few had ever shown up and raced. What we saw was people were building cars or bringing cars over from other clubs, but maybe 5-7 real ex-W/C cars were being raced? So we decided to "help" the class grow by having people feel they didn't have to compete againts giants. Ergo the 5% + which ever weight is greater. We have seen quite a few letters suggesting that we hurt the W/C cars too much. The issue is those efforts that have written letters are not of the caliber that we expect to win the RunOffs or even the June Sprints. Hard to use them as a Bar. Your car is older and from what I remember the Cougars never were very competitive? The issue is the class is based on Blanket Policy. If we adjust your car, then why not the Real Time car that won the RunOffs a few years ago?

Honestly, because your car would be on a specline we can make adjustments. That being said, we have to take a serious look at all the World Challenge cars in order to do so. Not making a promises, but perhaps your letter will prompt a good conversation.

[23racer]

Thanks Chris for the background. I totally understand the dilemma and I would be willing to provide any information that would be required.

Also, just a little more information, in the way of being fair, open and transparent to allow for a correct decision, there were only ever 2 Cougars built. The Capaldi's built the first one and then the Mumm's built the second one. The Mumm's made some improvements to the car based on what they saw from the Capaldi car so it is sorta a Second Gen car. The main issues with the car in WC was it constantly grenaded the gearbox on the standing starts and the cars spent most of every race running with a self destructing box so very rarely were the cars able to run "Flat Out" for the whole race. No standing starts in SCCA Club, far less of an issue. I have been told the Capaldi's were replacing boxes each session.

The second thing was that the cars are extremely nose heavy and as they were raced on non-R-Compound tires for the most part, they would chew up tires pretty quickly and the times would go off. That is why they were granted the ability to go up to a 245 section front tire. As the car can run on 245's now, that is not a major issue any longer, but the tires still go off at about 40 minutes.

I do have a very big safety issue with adding 388 lbs of bolted on ballast to the car. I also wanted the decisions to be made on actual information and not on how the car used to perform. In the cars present development level (2003 VTS plus 235x40x17 Toyo RA1's), it runs about 5 seconds a lap slower than the present WC GTS cars at Mosport. I don't know how that would fit into your target laptimes for the class.

Eric