Eurasian Engines - Proposal?

[Chip42]

compliance is the responsibility of the entrant and his competitors, and is no more difficult than something obscure it IT, GT, etc..

allow these motors upon individual request, require full documentation be submitted, and float the allowance WITH RELEVANT NUMBERS under suggested rules in fasttrack for responses from the rest of membership. if the submitted data is wrong, it can be protested and the classification updated.

[Knestis]

I did know that it had been shot down - root of my question - but didn't know you all had another proposal going forward. If there are specific aspects of how it's being angled that we can support with emails to the CRB, let us know.

thanks!

K

[mossaidis]

Lookin at it from the other side...

Since the B18C5 (Type R) motor is disallowed by the STAC/CRB, then how can STAC determine which Eurasian motors have similar factory prep levels so that they can disallow those as well? Unless you ask the STAC to research each Eurasian motor that is requested, they would have no idea and doing so would seem like an bad administrative nightmare, more so than seemingly in IT. The other option here would be to allow ANY 2.0 liter or under motor.

Somewhat tanglible, perhaps the STAC would also consider being more specific regarding brand relationships. HONDA-ACURA, FORD-MERCURY, etc

[JS154]

Somewhat tanglible, perhaps the STAC would also consider being more specific regarding brand relationships. HONDA-ACURA, FORD-MERCURY, etc

Are you suggesting the rules wording about the manufacturer of the chassis and engine being the same are not clear enough already?

[mossaidis]

Are you okay with folks placing a Fiat engine in a Chrysler or vice versa? or a saab into GM? This is nothing new. in our new world or corporate hierachy and subs, where do we draw the line?

[TStiles]

When are the rules going to stabilize ?

One week we get a weight increase ( I hear there is a proposal for another weight increase for the RWD cars ) now we're taking a second look at non USDM engines.

I've already made my decision to just run my ITA package in STL until this thing shakes out , but I'm concerned that few people will build a car until the rules are stable.

BTW : Thanks to you guys on the STAC , I don't always agree with there your going , but you guys have invested a ton of time into getting this thing going.

[Greg Amy]

Non-US engines, if approved, will be on a case-by-case approval basis, and all allowed engines will have to be investigated prior to allowance. All engine specs, such as compression ratio and camshaft lift, will still have to be met (i.e., if the stock Euro-cam has too much valve lift, you will not be allowed to run it). As you noted, without prior research there's no way to know if another sub-2L engine can/will produce more than what the class currently allows; that limit is inferentially around 170 hp*.

As for what engines are allowed for swaps, there is currently a debate within the STAC about that issue in regard to low-volume/alternate engine manufacturers. The reg currently states:

Alternate engines may be used, if the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g., an Acura engine installed into a Honda car) and was available in a car delivered in North America.

"Some say" this rule is unclear, especially when applied to specialty/low-volume chassis manufacturers that installed engines sourced from another manufacturer; e.g., Toyota engines installed in Lotus; can any Toyota engine thus be installed in said Lotus? Or can only Lotus engines (which don't exist) be alternately-installed in Lotus cars? "Others say" that since the engine and chassis manufacturer are different, only the original, installed engine can be run.

There's also some limited debate regarding familial relationships. The reg above specifically implies that familial engines (Honda/Acura) are allowed, not just "Honda engines in a Honda" (for example). "Some say" that this familial relationship should be one of very close, obvious ties (Honda/Acura, VW/Audi, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti, etc). "Others say" that these relationships should be much looser, even to the point of very loose co-ventures (e.g., Saab engines can be installed in a Pontiac). Unfortunately, this last issue is very difficult to determine, as if one stays too tight then some opportunities are lost; on the other hand, if one gets too loose then using the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" logic you could pretty much install anything into anything.

As of right now the obvious ones are, well, obvious. But short of explicitly listing each and every possible combination within the Super Touring regs - which we have no interest in doing - it will be left up to the competitor to use their best judgement. Part of that "best judgement" may be to submit a clarification request to the CRB and ask for explicit "blessing" for the combo before you start, lest you risk spending time/money/motivation and subsequently being subjected to the protest/appeal process.

But, IMO we did ourselves no favors last year when we explicitly "blessed" a request to install a VW 4-banger into a Porsche 944.

If you believe you may have found a short-term competitive advantage in a combo (short term because once you've run it, the cat's out of the bag), you might consider using the GCR rules clarification process which, if your request is approved, will not be published in Fastrack (rejections are published).

You takes your chances otherwise.

GA

* That just my WAG; there's no hard-coded limit. That is based on the fact that the Integra GS-R's 170hp is allowed, but the Type R's 190hp is not. On the other hand, we just approved the 220(?)hp Renesis in STL at a very high weight (3000+?) so that "horsepower limit" is quite grey right now...

[Z3_GoCar]

The difference is that GM used to own Sabb, same as they own Holden in Austrailia or used to own Opel in Germany. Now if we're talking joint ventures, that'd be like putting a Subaru in a GM product, since Sabb partnered with Sabaru in the last few years while the Government Motors owned them, and share a chassis. Speaking of chassis sharing, what about Mazda and Ford, lots of chassis swapping there, Mx-6/Probe, Mazda 2/Fiestiva...

[lateapex911]

Non-US engines, if approved, will be on a case-by-case approval basis, and all allowed engines will have to be investigated prior to allowance. All engine specs, such as compression ratio and camshaft lift, will still have to be met (i.e., if the stock Euro-cam has too much valve lift, you will not be allowed to run it). As you noted, without prior research there's no way to know if another sub-2L engine can/will produce more than what the class currently allows; that limit is inferentially around 170 hp*.


* That just my WAG; there's no hard-coded limit. That is based on the fact that the Integra GS-R's 170hp is allowed, but the Type R's 190hp is not. On the other hand, we just approved the 220(?)hp Renesis in STL at a very high weight (3000+?) so that "horsepower limit" is quite grey right now...

The way I've come to think of it is that the grand Poobah who dreamed up the concept and drew the line in the sand for numbers based it on the numbers Greg mentioned, BUT, what he REALLY did was to base it on 1.8 liter engines than can breath to that level. I say that since, as Greg points out, the higher hp version Type Arrrr, is forbidden, as is the S2000 version Making 120hp/litre) And they clearly feel there is something OTHER than cams and compression that make those numbers happen.

Now the Renesis motor is an interesting addition. IT makes 210 (WHP) or so in IT trim. Stock, it's under 200, by a significant amount, I think. Which, if in stock form, put's it right in the TEg engine wheelhouse. What was the reason for the extreme weight, I wonder?

[Ron Earp]

"Others say" that these relationships should be much looser, even to the point of very loose co-ventures (e.g., Saab engines can be installed in a Pontiac). Unfortunately, this last issue is very difficult to determine, as if one stays too tight then some opportunities are lost; on the other hand, if one gets too loose then using the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" logic you could pretty much install anything into anything.

Why worry about it at all? An engine is an engine. Pick an engine, put it in a chassis.

What "Super Touring" principle, or SCCA core value, are we upholding by only allowing engine swaps within the same company?

Why is Honda <-> Acura swap okay, but a GM <-> Ford swap not okay?

[Z3_GoCar]

Are you suggesting the rules wording about the manufacturer of the chassis and engine being the same are not clear enough already?

Mercedes Benze makes Honda under license in South Africa since the mid 80's, and since MB was the owner of Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep through Daimler/Chrysler, which only fell apart a few years ago, does that mean that Acura/Honda <-> Dodge/Chrysler? When the whole automotive world gets involved, it starts getting a little less clear.