STL engine builds?

[tyler raatz]

It's. Crank. What math do you want?

Wow, that is pretty sweet! A Honda B18C1 only needs to pick up 10hp over 100% stock numbers to meet the class target!
Too bad a Mazda BP4W needs to pick up 40hp
Too bad this isn't designed to be a Honda only class, it would make a great one
Turning my STL Miata into a LP prod car just looks better by the minute

[Rabbit07]

What is the stock cam lift of the B18?

What we knew of the hondas is that they were all very close to the class limit. Ergo not much to gain from the cams.

Many of the other engines will gain in spades with the camshaft changes.

You also can't get too crazy with duration becaue compression is limited to 11:1. To much duration and you don't get any cylinder pressure.

[coreyehcx]

If you look at the discussion at the beginning of this thread we are discussing whp and not crank.

What am I missing?

If the 1 hp per 12 Lbs (195 for 1.8) is for crank output then I'm worrying over nothing.



Edit: B18 what?

Non Vtec B18B1 has a lot to gain from its stock compression and cam lift.


B18C1 cam lift oem is very close to the limit... I can add the specs in a few mins.

[Rabbit07]

If you look at the discussion at the beginning of this thread we are discussing whp and not crank.

What am I missing?

If the 1 hp per 12 Lbs (195 for 1.8) is for crank output then I'm worrying over nothing.



Edit: B18 what?

Non Vtec B18B1 has a lot to gain from its stock compression and cam lift.


B18C1 cam lift oem is very close to the limit... I can add the specs in a few mins.

I can tell you with a great amount of confidence that the expected Target is 100 HP per liter "crank" for STL and 120 for STU. And for those that care STO is the wild west ;-)

[JS154]

I can tell you with a great amount of confidence that the expected Target is 100 HP per liter "crank" for STL and 120 for STU. And for those that care STO is the wild west ;-)

So a B16A2 engine is 1.6L and makes 160 CHP. Doing anything to the engine - cams, compression, ecu/software, etc puts it over the 'target'.

Comparatively, an SVT Focus is 2.0L and makes 170 CHP - with 4-2-1 headers and 10.2:1 compression stock.

A BMW M42 (from an E36 318ti) is 1.8L and makes 138CHP an has 10:1 compression.

A toyota 3S-GE froma Celica GTS at 2.0L in stock form made 135hp at 9.2:1 compression. Bumping it up to 11:1 and playing with cams, possibly 200CHP....might be a good intall into a 2nd Gen MR-2 or MR-S.

But I suspect the Honda is going to be the benchmark to meet/beat, especially the 1.6L engine at 520# lighter - that's a lot less weight to carry around corners like Mid-O and up hills like the Glen and the front straight at RdAm.

Maybe even put that 1.6L CivicSi motor into a low drag chassis like an Insight. There's tons of things people can come up with.

[Rabbit07]

I can't stress enought that the target is a starting point. We looked at this as objectively as we could and said it should be about "x".

It's a target, but it's a moving one. Again, we need cars built and racing each other before this really washes out.

[bamfp]

So what is the plan for pulling back combos that are too fast?

[Rabbit07]

So what is the plan for pulling back combos that are too fast?

Weight and/or restrictors can be used. That being said, we all hope that we can avoid specline restrictions or allowances in STL.

[JS154]

So what is the plan for pulling back combos that are too fast?

Easy. Just make sure you don't finish first by a lot. Or Third. At. All.

[R2 Racing]

It's a target, but it's a moving one.

Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that.

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

[Knestis]

Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that.

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

True.

True but increasingly debatable in its substance.

Not true.


K

[Rabbit07]

Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that.

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

LOL!

Foot in mouth.

What I intended that to mean was the following;

There was an expected target. What that target was is irrelavent. If the real world shows that it is something that is greater or lesser than the target, so be it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ohhhh, you KNOW you shouldn't have said that.

The absolute #1 excuse I get from Prep2 Prod "nay-sayers":
"Prod has historically been a 'moving target' type class."


Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Isn't being on an Advisory Committee fun?!

Kev,

Let me ask you this question:

If you walked the field this year at Nationals, would you expect a pat on the back in the offseason or a lead/RP trophy? I suspect we all think the latter. Are we wrong?

[Robbie]

So a B16A2 engine is 1.6L and makes 160 CHP. Doing anything to the engine - cams, compression, ecu/software, etc puts it over the 'target'.

Comparatively, an SVT Focus is 2.0L and makes 170 CHP - with 4-2-1 headers and 10.2:1 compression stock.

A BMW M42 (from an E36 318ti) is 1.8L and makes 138CHP an has 10:1 compression.

A toyota 3S-GE froma Celica GTS at 2.0L in stock form made 135hp at 9.2:1 compression. Bumping it up to 11:1 and playing with cams, possibly 200CHP....might be a good intall into a 2nd Gen MR-2 or MR-S.

But I suspect the Honda is going to be the benchmark to meet/beat, especially the 1.6L engine at 520# lighter - that's a lot less weight to carry around corners like Mid-O and up hills like the Glen and the front straight at RdAm.

Maybe even put that 1.6L CivicSi motor into a low drag chassis like an Insight. There's tons of things people can come up with.

I think the rules would allow a 3S-GTE converted to natural aspiration. I think that could make an SW20 a contender.

[JeffYoung]

Still an open question per Greg (which is fine, just want to hear what the STAC thinks aobut that issue at some point).

[Greg Amy]

Still an open question per Greg (which is fine, just want to hear what the STAC thinks aobut that issue at some point).

...that no one (ah-HEM!) has submitted a request on so we can discuss it...

[Chip42]

I think the rules would allow a 3S-GTE converted to natural aspiration. I think that could make an SW20 a contender.

just run the Celica's 3SGE. If they allowed the removal of the turbo you'd want an alt intake. the 2 motors are basically the same, there are some revisions like oil squirters but those could be added. not to beat a dead horse but the 3rd gen 3S from the JDM MR2 really would be the easy button, it has a revised intake and oil pump / circuit (same block) over that in the US 3SGE, everything else is 100% ST legal changes as far as I can tell.

[Knestis]

A few observations from the sidelines...

** It IS massively silly that with solid first principles in place (cam lift, weight/displacement math), there are additional engine source restrictions in place. It doesn't pass the stoopid test.

** HOWEVER, those restrictions *should* make it unnecessary to go hurtling down the individual make/model (or livery!) competition adjustments (bleah!).

** This should ABSOLUTELY be true when 100% of the people playing the game are doing "catalog horsepower" - theoretical estimates arrived at by stacking up improvements on top of quoted stock HP figures

It is what it is. It isn't perfect. But PLEASE don't take what is good about this category and F it all up with reactive adjustments based on on-track performance of a tiny sample of car/driver combinations - or worse yet, proactive adjustments based on ANTICIPATED on-track performance.

Dang, people.

K

[tyler raatz]

So a b18c1 is only expected to make a gain of 6% crank over bone stock? What is the hp gain factor used for that engine in ITS? If 180 crank is really the number, someone has really screwed up.
THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!

[Rabbit07]

So a b18c1 is only expected to make a gain of 6% crank over bone stock? What is the hp gain factor used for that engine in ITS? If 180 crank is really the number, someone has really screwed up.
THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!

That seems a bit dramatic don't you think?