View Poll Results: Should non-USDM motors be allowed in ST?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • NO - USDM only

    23 38.33%
  • YES

    30 50.00%
  • Allow on a case by case basis

    7 11.67%
Results 1 to 20 of 112

Thread: Should NON-US motors be allowed in ST?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Completely understood and valid points. The big issue is there are easy options where people can make cheap, reliable power, and they're legislated out just because one or two people on the CRB don't want anything from overseas here.

    As for a $3k junkyard engine being competitive to something built to the limit of the rules? no. my point was something that makes a helluvalot more power out of the box than what the current options are, and it will do it in stock-ish trim that will be much more reliable than something that puts out the same power in NA trim.
    Several local DE guys running these engines have 100k+ miles on them with original turbos and internals and have been putting down 300whp for years. Of course someone else could come along and throw a bucket of coin at it and make a whole lot more power on a 10hr engine, but there's nothing any of us can do about that.

    The good thing about STU and turbo engines is you're limited through the inlet restrictor, which physics will dictate just how much air can flow through that hole and thus maximum power output.

    I'm always going to get out-moneyed no matter where I go and what class I'm in.. At this point I'm just trying to help raise the potential of the bottom end of the playing field.
    Last edited by Matt93SE; 07-02-2011 at 12:12 AM.
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt93SE View Post
    I'm always going to get out-moneyed no matter where I go and what class I'm in.. At this point I'm just trying to help raise the potential of the bottom end of the playing field.
    I think that's very well said. But raising the potential at the bottom end means also means raising the potential at the top end, and that's where things get hung up. My guess is that the PTB didn't want to muck with the top.

    I understand the argument that maybe restrictors make it so that the gain at the top isn't as big as the gain at the bottom, that's also Christian's point about making it so that there are diminishing returns for spending more money. But there's still likely a change at the top and it appears that the PTB felt that they would have a hard time quantifying it, so it's not worth the risk.
    Josh Sirota
    ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •