STL engine builds?

[coreyehcx]

Thanks Chip,

I know there is a lot of speed to be found in the seat! I have been watching as many fast guys in similar cars and think I might have spotted a couple more things.

Back to the original thread topic, motor ripped in current trim. I'm trying to get a dyno soon to see how much it makes and to see if I can squeeze a few more out of it.


Has anyone seen any STL builds out there yet?

[lateapex911]

Yes, while you might be a great driver, most of us, myself included (I'm no Senna, but I hold a few track records so I'm not a complete moron either) thought we were pretty quick in our school and first few races, but the times still seem to drop from there. There's likely room for growth. ANd the last second or two is tough to find.
Also, Miatas are telepathic. I could get in one tomorrow and be within 98% of that cars fastest possible lap...they're easy to get pretty close. So I imagine you saw that phenomenon as well.
Hang in there and have fun!

[Chip42]

we saw a guy "telepath" his miata into the trees outside of turn 1/2 in the LAST SESSION OF THE WEEKEND. shame, because it wa sa REALLY nice, FAST car. the miata is definately a hero-maker. it's easy to drive quick, handles very well, and reasonably forgiving. the fact that it's been so well sorted by the likes of ISC/OPM/FOM etc... mean that there's very little that you can't buy to get everything out of the car, other than raw talent in the seat. the student referenced above obviously found out where the limits are, though.

in pro racing bumper cars, I'd take a good FWD car any day. RWD might be faster but it has to get away from the pack on the first lap and FWD is just plain BETTER at that, and at dealing with the jabs. in our type of racing I think the miata is the prime automobile, there's very little out there that's anywhere close to as good (C6 corvette, maybe a lotus, supercars?). everythign else is overly compromised and we don't run in huge mixed make packs with a lot of bumping on a regular basis.

100% agreement on the S2000 though. trying to control costs in ST by disallowing certian chassis is a silly idea. the rules are open enough to allow cubic dollar expenditures in so many places that a civic could easily wind up being worth more in development and engineering costs than an NSX. add a "darn good suspension" weight penalty if you must but let um run what they brung.

[coreyehcx]

Chip, I feel so bad but I was tearing up laughing just reading that telepath into the trees! I wish I had better video outside of him spinning out behind me.

Thanks lateapex.

The Miata's rolling up on me was frustrating for sure. The racing was fun with them and I lost out to them twice in qualifying not that it mattered for school especially since I was ahead at the end.

It did seem like those guys hopped into rented cars and were very fast with not a lot of experience. I know one of them has some decent exp with track days and he drove his own car so I expected him to be quick because he always is.

The 1.8s couldnt hang in the straights at all but were with me the rest of the way which is totally in my hands. Im a straight wuss going into turn 1 there which is where Im being caught, Im guessing that stretch is easily another second or more shaved off.

God it was fun!


Let the s2000 come play, that motor would cost an arm and a leg to make any power with past where its at basically. Im all for the 7% RWD adder as well as the s2000 suspension penalty if it were allowed lol.

[Bob Roth]

I don't get the "no type R", No JDM, No S2000 logic in STL when I look at NASA Honda Challenge and think most of those cars are forbidden.

Honda challenge allows US and JDM R's with no modifications. See http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Honda-Challenge.pdf When you can buy 60,000 mile engine/trans swap on EBAY for about $5000 any day of the week. Why would you want to build anything else? http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...All-Categories

I think the big factors to the decision of building a race car are 1) Cost, and 2) Actually liking and being proud of the car that is built.

The JDM motors, the S2000, and the type R's are the Uber cars from Honda. People actually think they are cool. Why SCCA exclude them, especially when they are widely used in the Honda Challenge is a mystery to me.

Just asking the question.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

My take as an interested party but someone not involved in any rules is simple: The class has mechanical limits on certain items. They stock variations of those motors exceed those limits so they are out. They have drawn their line in the sand. Having said that:

I am not sure why those motors can't be 'de-tuned' to max spec just like anything can be 'built-up' to max spec.

The chassis thing is still grey to me. S2000 is out but Miata is in? The STAC had a chance to eliminate cars of similar ilk like the FD RX-7 and the NSX last month when they put the Type-R chassis back in play...but didn't. Why? These aren't new questions but have seemingly gone unanswered.

[Bob Roth]

I appreciate your comment. I make these comments in the spirit of doing what's right in order to give Honda guy's a cheap engine to build, that will be attractive in the used car market when done. For anybody who wants to build a wishbone civic, they will be using the type r hubs, brakes, axles and transmission anyway, why should they not use the JDM engines when they are easily and cheaply available from Japan. (Ps the same is true with the JDM DZ equivalent of the D16 which I bet more than a few guys in ITA are running cause domestic engines are becoming scarce.)

There are four major differences between a GSR and a domestic teg r. Camshaft, factory ported head, Intake manifold/throttle body, and 10.5 compression. The difference between a JDM R motor and domestic R motor is cams, and 11 compression. If someone is worried about the cost of ownership implications of 10,500 rpm B series motors because of the Type R potential, require that these engines be IT spec, 11 - 1 compression max, US or JDM cams. This is what NASA does, problem solved.

Where its a hangup for me is I have a ITR Integra R and I can't enter my car in STLin IT trim. Same is true for anybody with a ITR S2000. We have a national race up in Brainard that has very light attendance that I was planning on just to support the club. Now I realize I can't go.

Here's the real rub, the logical thing to do for most Honda guys if they want to win in STL is build a domestic 2 liter K Si motor which should within rules will put out 225 hp. In IT, my legal motor puts out about 175 to the wheels. The K motor also works with the 6 spd trans vs my 5 speed.
I race aCivic Si in world challenge and I have raced against a Nasa Teg R with a K swap, and a Nasa Civic with a type R swap. If you are serious, the K motor is the way to go.

You use the type r motor in a civic if you want to save money. The JDM and Type R motors are a cheap way to build an excellent honda. Same is true for the S2000 because you can buy a worn car for 10k or less. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Honda...ht_20030wt_881 All the S2000 is is heavier, larger displacement Miata. Sure it has more HP potential than a 2 liter SI, fine, require IT motor spec, adjust the weight and move on.


Its not like SCCA is banning horsepower. What they are banning is cheap horsepower. Why ban the type r and not the Civic Si K motor too? You will always be able to build more HP with a legal 2 liter K motor. What the club should do is allow the type R and JDM motors and require IT rules US or JDM R cams, 11 to 1 and bump the weight appropriately. Its a cheap reliable motor.

By the way, I didn't answer your question on bumping down to max spec. I agree its possible to drop a GSR head and intake on my car. But it would be a lot easier and cheaper to adjust the 1800 type r weight to be between a GSR and a K civic SI and call it a day. I think it would also attract a lot more Honda's.

[Greg Amy]

I don't get the "no type R", No JDM, No S2000 logic in STL when I look at NASA Honda Challenge and think most of those cars are forbidden.

We're re-addressing the non-US market engines. CRB last year rejected allowing them on the grounds of scrutineering. We'll try to address those concerns better.

Honda challenge allows US and JDM R's with no modifications.

The philosophy of Super Touring is one prep level for all, not a mish-mash of different prep levels for different engines. NASA can do that because they have five classes and specifically classify each engine, and as I understand it they actively manage those going forward. There's only one SCCA STL and the same prep level applies to everyone.

If NASA has found a way to allow S2000 and Type R engines to compete in the same class against Honda 1.5 and 1.6L engines using the same prep level allowances, we're all ears on how to do that.

We had to draw a top line in the performance sand somewhere, and that line is apparently the GS-R engine.

What the club should do is allow the type R and JDM motors and require IT rules US or JDM R cams, 11 to 1 and bump the weight appropriately.

The K20 is not specifically banned, because even though it starts at 200 hp it's already at the class limit of 11:1 compression, will have to actually reduce cam lift to meet the class max valve lift of .425", and at 2 liters displacement the car would have to weigh 260# more than the GS-R engine. The Type R, on the other hand, starts with 190, can add compression from stock, and while it would also have to reduce cam lift it would still weigh the same as the B18C1 from the GS-R.

One can debate that these are comparable, but the CRB has drawn that line in the sand. And, given that people are already whining about how "STL is a Honda class" I highly doubt anyone is interested in changing the regs to offer more higher-performance options for the Honda set.

GA

[Bob Roth]

Is it a fact that the Type R to IT rules is higher performance than a GSR? I don't think it is. Yes the stock Teg R cam has a .452 intake lift, but the STL class GSR camx can have as much duration as you want. My guess is that a GSR at full build and maximized duration is not much different than a ITR Teg R.

As for the '09 Civic Si K20Z3, it comes with a .483 lift. I guess unless someone wants to do a K20Z3 custom cam build, there's no K20 cams legal for the class. If you see a K20 engine, ask him where his cam came from.

If you are going to let the K20Z3 race, I argue if car counts matter it be wiser to instead just let these cars run in their IT trim and adjust as is prudent rather than force them to take decontenting expense that many won't do anyway. By allowing stock JDM engined cars to run, it allows Nasa honda challenge cars to run. Of you allow ITR class B18C5, and S2000, if you care about car count, its what i would do.

STL will be an engine swap, chassis swap class. For example, if you have a '91 Civic. The B16 '99 civic si motor has far more potential with 33mm Intake, 28mm Ex valves than a CRX D16 with 30mm intake, 26 mm ex. Add in intaker manifolds and throttle body's and its obvious that if somebody is serious and wants to build a 2160 pound honda they will go with the B16 and run type r brakes and transmission.

Now my point is that there are only a few engines that make sense for any size so I say its darn right that the committee should pick the engines for each manufacturer that make the most sense, cost, and build the class around it. If the CRB doesn't want to bother balancing engine potentials, then they had better only allow 16 valve engines that had redlines 6000 or less because otherwise there will always be someone whining that their 5800 rpm redline 1.6 Geo Storm econobox with 28mm intake valves getting spanked by a 8000 rpm redline honda 1.6 having 5mm bigger valves and a heck of a lot better intake.

So, if the CRB is going to have to pick the engines, the committee might as well do it smart. They ought to look at the brands people want to race, Honda, Mazda, BMW, VW, etc and pick obvious combinations that those brand enthusiasts will move to. For Honda, if you want a 1.6 you have a good choice. If you and to build a 1.8 or 2 liter Honda the smart move is to allow ITR engines, JDM and domestic and limit their prep and adjust their weights. Car counts matter, allowing the Nasa Honda Challenge cars to run and letting Honda/Acura ITR class cars built to ITR engine prep will help get car counts. Thats my point.

[coreyehcx]

By the way, I didn't answer your question on bumping down to max spec. I agree its possible to drop a GSR head and intake on my car. But it would be a lot easier and cheaper to adjust the 1800 type r weight to be between a GSR and a K civic SI and call it a day. I think it would also attract a lot more Honda's.

This is not possible, you would still have a B18C5 block which is not legal.

Also not to be nit picky but the GSR cam lift is not .425 in, its .417 in.

The B16A2 is .421 in.


I agree with JDM engines Bob and think you have valid points in some areas.

[Chip42]

bob, first, I want you to know that I agree with your principle and with your intent to make the SCCA more attractive to exisiting cars built to run with other sanctions. 100% with you on these principles. STL rules are new and unfortunately seemed get the cart in front of the horse in some respects. Published rules are not often overhauled, less so when they are new.

Keeping that in mind:

if you have a Teg R setup for ITR, you may run it in STL AS IS, at the IT weight and in full compliance to the ITCS. same for an S2000 or anythign else classed in IT with a 2.0L or smaller engine (over 2.0L in STU). so those cars "may" compete in STL, just not at full STL prep levels.

Honda is the LAST manufacturer that should have an angry mob demanding non-USDM engine allowances. they have great small motors HERE (B16/17/18, K20). it's Nissan and Toyota in particular (but asian manufacturers not called "Honda" in general) who need home market support, as they sold "focus-grouped" econoboxes here before moving to "large" displacement stump pullers. Some euro and even domestic brands (ford europe, GM's Opel, etc) have simillar offerings outside of the states that would be great for STL.

As for de-tune, the intent of the phrase is to maintain the stock long block and reduce cam lift to the class limits (an accepted example is the Celica GTS 1.8L 2ZZ-GE which has over-limit valve lift). OEM compression can stay if over 11:1. the phrase does NOT mean to bolt a GSR head/intake combo to a tegR bottom end, unless you can prove that the 2 bottom ends are identical aside from compression. as delivered, they are not. even then, having "B18C5" stamped on the block of a "GSR" is illegal on its face.

I've argued in the past that anything within the displacement, CR, and lift limits of the class should be acceptable, but was refuted with arguments about rules enforcement. in reality its an attempt at artificial fiscal restraint, by keeping things "stock" you keep the development costs contained, at least on big-ticket items. imagine a field of 1.5 to 2.0L, 11:1, 0.425" valve lift 16V engines with Dart blocks and heads the likes of that seen in F1, with individual throttle bodies and all that. $100k motors before they even get bolted in. this is the "open" class concept taken to it's limits. so instead, the rules were written to make the class use stock USDM parts, which means the previous scenario is replaced by B and K series Hondas, 2ZZ Toyotas, and BP mazdas (which will do well because of the chassis they come bolted to, not the engine per se, though it's not a bad mill it's just not going to make honda level specific output).

I've just accepted that it's like hotwheels: some cars not for use will some sets.

[Greg Amy]

No disagreement with Chip's point above, but...

if you have a Teg R setup for ITR, you may run it in STL AS IS, at the IT weight and in full compliance to the ITCS. same for an S2000...

...please don't fall in love with this. This was a committee oversight and is very likely to be "corrected" soon.

Cue whining.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

No disagreement with Chip's point above, but...



...please don't fall in love with this. This was a committee oversight and is very likely to be "corrected" soon.

Cue whining.

GA

Opinions aside, at least we know it's coming and being 'corrected'.

[CRallo]

*whine*

No disagreement with Chip's point above, but...



...please don't fall in love with this. This was a committee oversight and is very likely to be "corrected" soon.

Cue whining.

GA

[Chip42]

No disagreement with Chip's point above, but...



...please don't fall in love with this. This was a committee oversight and is very likely to be "corrected" soon.

Cue whining.

GA

[STL]

argument = "makes no sense."

[/STL]

[Greg Amy]

[STL]

argument = "makes no sense."

[/STL]

My personal opinion on the matter - please reread the bold part, and if you missed that, please read my signature - is that it makes absolutely no sense to classify an alternate-category car in Super Touring that may have a chance to be competitive. As much as 99.99% of the people on this board wish otherwise, the Super Touring Category prep specs are the whole point of Super Touring, and everything else is "grid filler".

[waving finger] Oh no you didn't say that!!! [/waving finger] Yup, I did. Tell me you're shocked. We - sorry, I - really do mean that part where it says:

While IT cars may not be competitive in the ST category,
their inclusion in the category will allow regional competitors to
participate in national events.

Improved Touring was, as I recall, the very first "inclusion" category added to the STCS, and we've consistently added more upon request since. Note that each one of those has more than a sprinkling of "sure, come play in the sandbox, but please don't expect to have a big chance of winning." This cannot be news to you...

The deal with the ITR cars is simple: I blew it. I personally authored and sponsored changing the rules last year to explicitly allow 2L IT cars into Super Touring Light, knowing that the performance level STL is probably going to be around ITR times. At the time, I was thinking about ITS-level performance and completely and totally forgot to look through ITCS and see that there was, in fact, three ITR cars of less than 2L displacement.

Simply put, it is not my personal intention to classify alternate-category cars into Super Touring that have a reasonable chance of winning against full-up-built ST cars. I can't think of any other category in any other organization that would stand for that.

I am speaking only for myself and can only infer that the rest of the STAC and the CRB is on board with that intent.

Hey, "my bad".

GA

[Chip42]

I just think it's odd. even <2.0L ITR cars should be at a disadvantage to full prep STL cars. too many exceptions. yeah, I know they are SUPPSOED to be field filler, but note where the quoted STCS text says "may not be competitive" - my impression was that it's not expected, but hey, good on ya if you are.

of course, now that weight is being added to the class as a whole, the ITR cars look even more attractive. so now I can see where you might want to say only ITS/A/B/C cars of <2L can play. heck, I'd make it ITS/A below 2.0L and any ITB/C cars of 1985 and newer...

I'm not trying to dump all over STL. I like the idea of the class. but all of the arbitrary "lines in sand", talk of a higher RWD adder, exlusions and inclusions and partial exceptions etc.. have made it 1 - very confusing to the competitors and officials who spend less time worrying about it than a relative few, and 2 - seemingly non sensical AND exclusionist to cars that "should" be the target players.

I say move your lines up a bit, let in the ITR/S2000 in with a cam detune to the current 11:1, 0.425, etc.. rules, allow all <2.0L IT cars, and allow specline approved non-USDM motors (i.e. case by case). adjust weight equations on the class so that this works (so an STL tegR should be lighter than an ITR tegR, STL S2000 lighter than ITR S2000, etc..). ignore pending bspec cars because they aren't going to be competitive anyhow (even with a motor swap. they are breadvans with rudimentary suspensions). leave the RWD adder alone (for now, at least, which is what I think you have said is being done). remove the 4cyl limit. keep everything else unchanged (in reality, these proposals affect 2 paragraphs of the STCS). end the whining, grow the class.

free advice, worth what you paid for it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Of course they will be! Even the top ITR car on paper is a dog compared to this 175whp 1.6L monster. It's not even close!

[Robbie]

If the CRB doesn't want to bother balancing engine potentials, then they had better only allow 16 valve engines that had redlines 6000 or less because otherwise there will always be someone whining tKhat their 5800 rpm redline 1.6 Geo Storm econobox with 28mm intake valves getting spanked by a 8000 rpm redline honda 1.6 having 5mm bigger valves and a heck of a lot better intake.

My Geo Storm revs to 7700 thank you very much. It's also funny that someone racing an Integra derides a Storm as an econobox.

[Bob Roth]

OMG, and here I thought I'd picked a car that nobody would be offended by. I suppose he's the STL CRB rep too!