Where to you locate an alternate engine?

[Chip42]

this one one of the issues I raised in my omnibus letter a long while back (right around the time tGA joined the STAC). at the time, I don't think there was language allowing FWD wngine into RWD cars to be put "wherever" or however that language reads now, but there are some simple rules that would reign this mess in pretty easily.

1 - determine IF the intent of the rules allows (or should allow) for stock engines to be lowered, set back, or rotated about the crank centerline (especially applicable to FWD).

2 - require some specific measurements - 1:installed engine's stock angular orientation about the crank centerline (referencing Cyl #1 bore centerline vs vertical) and 2: for transverse applications: installed engine's crank/bellhousing interface plane position relative to vehicle centerline as delivered in the doner car.

3 - as the baseline, use stock or installed engine's angular orientation and stock bellhousing interface position from vehicle centerline, or the chassis' stock bellhousing plane for any installed engine (stock or swap) in longitudinal applications.

based on the answer to the above questions, set the limits/tolerances from stock. allow or disallow certain modifications, such as cross member modification / replecement as mentioned by Matt. this could make some chassis automatically better than others, so is worth considering with point 1. consider allowing transvere installations a greater angular orientation freedom in exhange for longitudinal setups getting a verical allowance as both will help driveline orientation.

pretty easy set of rules, just needs to be codified. cart's way ahead of the horse already.

[Greg Amy]

Some interesting thoughts, Chip. I'll have to go look up your old letter (you wouldn't know that number, would you?)

But as a scrutineer, I see a big hole in the logic: how do you determine "stock" location? Angular orientation? None of this is documented in the factory shop manuals. What's the chances of finding a stock example of whatever car you're inspecting at the time (and not risk it being a ringer brought in by the same team)? As a competitor, I'd have my $25 appeal form already pre-filled out the moment they start to do the "stock location" measurements. And I'm pretty sure the competitor would win.

I'm personally leaning toward the "within the engine compartment" or something along the same lines. The category already has a fairly large set of engine allowances, and something like that is far easier to scrutineer. But on the other hand, what could someone do such an open reg? Would anything they do be a significant change? If so, do we care? I'd really like to brainstorm the extremes of what could be done if given a big open hole like that to drive through.

Remember, any reg we create must be able to be objectively measured against a known standard, by person of reasonable - but not extreme - technical talent.

GA

[Chip42]

original angular orientation and the bellhousing plane can be part of the VTS requirements. for most engines this will be easy, as they are just revisions or other permutations of a engine series/family that WAS sold in the USA - M10/M40/M50/etc series BMWs, Nissan-VEs and -DETs, 20v and 1JZ toyotas, honda stuff (usually just differently stamped versions of what we already have here with slight differences that are already allowed or made irrelevant in ST rules), etc... when bolted into a chassis that accepted that engine family as stock, there is plenty of data to point to.

measure with the head off, as the car sits, referencing a cylinder wall. make the tolerance enough to allow for some rake in the chassis, and make it clear that the (seemingly large?)tolerance is there for that reason.

bellhousing centerline should be able to be reaosnably acertained from any body shop manual for the doner car. again, make it part of the classification requirements.

make a specific year range and model of car(s) part of the alternative engine allowance. so you can say (years) toyota Levin (AE110) "black top" 20V 4A-GE with 6 spd trans (C-something) has 5° slant and the bellhousing plane is 2
left of center. (those numbers are complete POOMA and used for example only)

BTW, are shift linkage / trans housing modifications legal to allow for swaps?

benefits to expliting these measurements are lower CG, both of the engine AND of the car as a whole allowing the chassis to be set lower without CV axle bind and better weight balance, including offset weight for a smaller drivetrain. there's liekly some actual but small power benefits as well from minimizing driveline misalignment at ride height, if not from less obvious things like creating better intake pathways and the like.

[Greg Amy]

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, not intending to pick on you. I agree with what you're suggesting, but...

>>> original angular orientation and the bellhousing plane can be part of the VTS requirements.

There are no VTS for cars in Super Touring U and L. Anything can run in that class with the appropriate engine. And there won't be any VTS for engines except non-US market engines.

>>> make a specific year range and model of car(s) part of the alternative engine allowance.

Unfortunately, that's cat's long out of the bag, unlikely to be further restricted. But to do so would require a wholesale change in the philosophy, in addition to having to specifically approve each and every possible combination, immediately making any swap non-compliant until the STAC/CRB goes through the process of approving them. And given our slow lead times (request ->STAC ->CRB -> Fastrack) we'd be holding people up until we did.

It'll probably bite us in the ass eventually, but I just can't see moving from an "open" philosophy to a "permitted only".

>>> BTW, are shift linkage / trans housing modifications legal to allow for swaps?

Can't say for sure without specifics - and it's not really mine to say - but I would suggest it's compliant to change a car from cable to rod or hydraulic shift, if that's what the desired trans used.

>>> AND of the car as a whole allowing the chassis to be set lower without CV axle bind and better weight balance...

Note ST classes each have minimum ride height.

GA

[Chip42]

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, not intending to pick on you. I agree with what you're suggesting, but...

>>> original angular orientation and the bellhousing plane can be part of the VTS requirements.

There are no VTS for cars in Super Touring U and L. Anything can run in that class with the appropriate engine. And there won't be any VTS for engines except non-US market engines.

using VTS in the vaguest of senses here. if the doner car and engine are USDM, then refeences are available. you made a point that this would be hard to tech for non USDM doner cars. have non USDM doner engines include this information in their listing when they are permitted. soup.

>>> make a specific year range and model of car(s) part of the alternative engine allowance.

Unfortunately, that's cat's long out of the bag, unlikely to be further restricted. But to do so would require a wholesale change in the philosophy, in addition to having to specifically approve each and every possible combination, immediately making any swap non-compliant until the STAC/CRB goes through the process of approving them. And given our slow lead times (request ->STAC ->CRB -> Fastrack) we'd be holding people up until we did.

again, the cvomment was with regard to newly approved, non USDM motors.

It'll probably bite us in the ass eventually, but I just can't see moving from an "open" philosophy to a "permitted only".

was a misread - I'm trying to point out a way that you can regulate transplant placement going forwar din any way that you want. if the info becomes irrelvat due to openness, fine. if you (the STAC) decide to place limits on engine position / orientation, you have that available for the "hard to tech" engines from other markets. it CAN get ugly, I'm sure a lot of people might have issue with transplant or stock motors being set back, down, and/or roatated as Ron suggests (they did take back some of these allowances in STO not too long ago, so there's your precedent). what your job is to do is to decide if you want to see how bad it is (fully open), or set up limits and adjust them as you see fit in the future. I vote #2.

>>> BTW, are shift linkage / trans housing modifications legal to allow for swaps?

Can't say for sure without specifics - and it's not really mine to say - but I would suggest it's compliant to change a car from cable to rod or hydraulic shift, if that's what the desired trans used.

I'm thinking FWD trnasaxle in a mid engined car (I'm MR2 centric) - inputs are on the "wrong" side of the case. easy button for the 4A/3S/2ZZ series is use the center section from the trans that came with some MR2 with the same trans series, but it's easy enough to adapt many of the cases too. just wondering if that is legal (seems to fit the roffe corollary and the spirit of the swap allowance)

>>> AND of the car as a whole allowing the chassis to be set lower without CV axle bind and better weight balance...

Note ST classes each have minimum ride height.

GA

yeah, they do, but sometimes, particularly with FWD cars, you can't even GET to the allowed ride height due to axle bind (maybe only in roll but still there) and even if you can, you can still make the system better by bringing the axles into alignment. is the diff position open in RWD IRS cars?

[Ron Earp]

I'm personally leaning toward the "within the engine compartment" or something along the same lines. The category already has a fairly large set of engine allowances, and something like that is far easier to scrutineer. But on the other hand, what could someone do such an open reg? Would anything they do be a significant change? If so, do we care? I'd really like to brainstorm the extremes of what could be done if given a big open hole like that to drive through.

2. Engine and gearbox mounts may be solid, but must not relocate
the engine or transmission in any direction.

3. Either the OEM transmission or an alternate transmission must
be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same
manufacturer as the vehicle (e.g., an Acura transmission may be
installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in
their entirety.

What if the alternate transmission must move the engine somewhat from the "stock" location? What is the stock location if I'm putting an engine into a car that never had that engine in the first place, i.e., engine swap?

[Greg Amy]

What is the stock location if I'm putting an engine into a car that never had that engine in the first place, i.e., engine swap?

That's really the crux of the agenda item we're facing now: installing a rotary engine into a car that only had a piston engine (or vice versa). A reasonable person would say "well, that's a different story, do whatcha gotta do". But then a competitor will say, "well, if *he* can move the trans down lower without measurable restriction to accommodate that engine, why can't I do the same in my car that already *has* that engine..."?

Allowing alternate engines/trans comes with it a certain level of implied allowances. We need to figure out where that implication ends.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Allowing alternate engines/trans comes with it a certain level of implied allowances. We need to figure out where that implication ends.

GA

Let me know when you figure it out.

Ron "Considering a nasty Ford 2L with alternative transmission laid over about 50 degrees so it be much closer to the ground than hood" Earp

[Greg Amy]

Ron "Considering a nasty Ford 2L with alternative transmission laid over about 50 degrees so it be much closer to the ground than hood" Earp

But you see, that kinda stuff just doesn't bother me. If you want to spend all that time, money, investment, hassles to do that, I think ST is a great place for it. In the end you will have spent a tons of resources trying to develop it, you can't run dry sump in STL (and 2L engines are prob not competitive in STU where you can), your chassis still has to be 5" off the ground, you're going to weigh the same as other 2L engines (plus RWD 'cause I know you're a RWD guy), and...

...in the end all those resources and all that effort will result in very little performance benefit. Especially since you're probably going to put it in a damn Mustang chassis! And some guy in a Miata is still gonna wax your tail.

But if you want to do it, I say "keep a build log with photos, babe!"

[Matt93SE]

2. Engine and gearbox mounts may be solid, but must not relocate
the engine or transmission in any direction.

3. Either the OEM transmission or an alternate transmission must
be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same
manufacturer as the vehicle (e.g., an Acura transmission may be
installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in
their entirety.

What if the alternate transmission must move the engine somewhat from the "stock" location? What is the stock location if I'm putting an engine into a car that never had that engine in the first place, i.e., engine swap?

The problem with that is that the doors are already open in regards to trans. I can run a 6 spq sequential if I want. McClughan's Mazda 6 has an XTrac tranny with an external diff and that damn thing costs more than my car, truck, trailer, and all my spares combined! Of course it's mated to a Comptech engine too.


______________

Given all these relocation issues and blah blah blah, the old fully-built WC-TC cars all have every bit of that taken into account already. They also have gorgeous custom intake manifolds and airboxes (and restrictor plates to go with them)..

If you're going to open the door, why not just knock down the whole wall on that side of the barn?! :026:

[Ron Earp]

I'm dense but not dense enough to try and run a Ford Sn95 in a FWD Honda class. However, the thought is intriguing of what one could do with a 2L Miata and liberal application of the legal rules.

[Greg Amy]

However, the thought is intriguing of what one could do with a 2L Miata and liberal application of the legal rules.

..and that's what I'm asking: what's the worst-case scenario?

[Clarkson]How bad could it be...?[/Clarkson]

[TStiles]

..and that's what I'm asking: what's the worst-case scenario?

[Clarkson]How bad could it be...?[/Clarkson]

Worst case scenario is that guys like me ( with limited budgets and technical expertise ) say the price to play is too high and we do something else.

Allowing more and more modifications is not how I would grow the ST classes.

The guys with healthy budgets and technical skills already have GT classes and Prod classes.

Maybe the compromise position is to allow the wide open stuff in STO & STU and keep STL more of a bolt on class before it gets out of control.