Eurasian Engines - Proposal?

[Knestis]

Yike. That's been my operative assumption, Greg. If it's different in practice, I'm not sure how to even think about the problem. My paperwork is just about ready, BTW.

K

[Matt93SE]

That's good to hear.
I could understand if this were ProRacing where they have a team of engineers to scrutinize every proposed change to an engine and approve or deny line items, but I'm happy to see common sense apply here.

Will be getting paperwork together whenever I have free time. Took a new job a few months ago to try to make life easier, and surprise!! I'm right back to working 60hr weeks on a project that was doomed from the start.

[Knestis]

My letter is in but I have an additional PDF of service manual stuff to send along. You want it, Greg?

K

[Greg Amy]

Email it to me, I'll get it to the committee. - GA

[Knestis]

Wilco.

K

[webhound]

Bump. In my reading of the last GCR that I had downloaded, which iirc was the Nov rev, among the few non-USDM swaps listed, there wasn't a Honda ZC on the list.

I have access to a super-mega cheap JDM ZC swap for my EF Civic, and I'm kicking this around. Is anyone working on this/has a request already been submitted for the JDM Honda ZC motor? If not, I'll start putting a request together. For those that have done it, do I need to submit it on a VTS, or just get it to the STAC in a pdf specs package and cover letter?

Anyone see any barriers to this config getting approved? It's essentially the same architecture as the D16A1, DOHC motor from the first gen USDM Integra, so it's certainly no overdog in this arena. IMO fully built it would still be weak compared to the B16, I'd do it b/c it's cheap and I can use the stock mounts and my current transmission, etc....

Will

[Greg Amy]

Is anyone working on this/has a request already been submitted for the JDM Honda ZC motor?

The STAC has no requests on this engine.

...do I need to submit it on a VTS, or just get it to the STAC in a pdf specs package and cover letter?

See January 2013 Fastrack.

Anyone see any barriers to this config getting approved?

I know very little about this engine, but as long as its stock output is in line with existing US-spec options, it should get approved.

Do note that even if it is approved, you'll still have to build within the existing STL prep limits. So, for example, if the stock valve lift is more than .425" (10.8mm) you'll have to re-cam it.

...it would still be weak compared to the B16, I'd do it b/c it's cheap and I can use the stock mounts and my current transmission, etc..

Again, I don't know this engine, but why go to the trouble instead of building up a comparable US-spec D-series engine?

GA

[webhound]

Thanks GA. I'll look at the Jan FT for guidance.

Noted on following STL specs. Best I can tell without measuring, the dohc ZC stock cam lift is around .400-410" lift, so ok there. It's a relatively low comp engine, as was the way back in the early 90s when it was produced, so ok there.

I'd use it simply b/c it will be literally free to me, along with a few spare bits. So assuming it passes approval, it would just cost me paper, vs the albeit very minor cost a sohc USDM motor would cost me. Since most of it's hours would probably see it running hpde and stuff, I'd just use it stock for the beginning, with just a minor top end touch up.

All this is just looking ahead to 2014, I'll run it some in 2013 in ITB trim with the D15 that's in it. Somehow I think ZC or something with a lil power will be more entertaining than the D15 , especially goofing off in hpde sessions. The other choice was looking like getting a clapped out and already B16 swapped Civic, and swap that drivetrain into my EF chassis, but a free dohc ZC is, well, free...

Thanks again!

Will

[Xian]

Greg, the DOHC ZC is basically a higher zoot version of the engine available in the first gen Integra. Want to say the ZC is rated at/around 130hp with decent (for a Honda) torque. I swapped ne into my street CRX years and years ago. It definitely had more power than the stock (but underrated) D16A6. Big advantages for it are that it uses the stock transmission, doesn't require aftermarket engine mounts, and doesn't involve all the VTEC shenanigans that the later D16Z6 engine needs. Parts availability is decent as many of the parts are shared with the early Integra and one of the mid-model Preludes, IIRC.

[adamjabaay]

I loved my old Dohc zc street car from 10-12 years ago. It was basically as quick as a d16a6. Not much more power

[Xian]

Curious... were you running the stock ECU? I swapped to an 87/88 Integra ECU, IIRC, and it "felt" m0Ar powerful. 'Cause you know a seat of the pants dyno has never been wrong before...

[adamjabaay]

I ran an 89 integra Ecu..butt dyno said mad power yo.

...and an chipped/tuned PM6 when I built individual throttle bodies....installed Exospeed cams...and milled the head.

It was a massive undertaking for a 20 year old kid. I didn't know what a wideband o2 sensor was and knocked its way into a bunch of blown headgaskets.

On topic again ....is an OEM/stock JDM b16 approved for STL yet? Its being talked about by tom91ita and myself

[Greg Amy]

...is an OEM/stock JDM b16 approved for STL yet? Its being talked about by tom91ita and myself

Nope. Has not been requested.

What's different about it versus the US-market engine?

GA

[Xian]

Hi Greg,

I did a little looking around on the web to refresh my memory and it all matches up pretty well to what I expected to find. The USDM B16A2/3 that was available in the Del Sol VTEC and the 99/00 Civic Si is pretty damn close to the "early" JDM B16A (offered in the 88-91 Civic/CRXen)... same output # (160hp, 112tq), same compression, bore/stroke, etc. I'd imagine that there are sensor differences since the "early" JDM engine was OBD0 vs the USDM ones being OBD1/2. This engine came mated to a cable tranny that will work easily with the 88-91 Civic/CRXen vs. the USDM hydraulic tranny that takes a cable-->hydro conversion.

Apparently the "later" JDM B16A offered in the 92-95 Civic got a power bump to 170hp with a slight bump up to 116tq. This engine had higher compression (10.4 vs. 10.2) and revised camshafts. No idea what, specifically, was revised with them. Not sure but I'd suspect that this engine was OBD1 like the early US spec stuff was?

There was also the B16B offered in Japan for the even yet later Civic Type R. This was a high zoot engine and, if I'm honest, I don't think that STL would benefit by including it into the ruleset. They've always been tough to find and fairly pricey. I just don't see a big advantage to letting them in. The other JDM B16 engines though would be a potential boon to anyone looking to build out an EF/EG *or* looking to run the smaller displacement engine in a DA/DC Integra. They're pretty damn cheap and there have been a ton of them imported and stuffed into donor cars...

Edit & PS:
What about the tranny legality? Would there need to be a review/spec process for that as well? For the cable tranny, it look like the 1-4th ratios are a touch longer than the USDM tranny while 5th is a little shorter. The hydro tranny uses the same gearing as the USDM.

[Greg Amy]

Apparently the "later" JDM B16A offered in the 92-95 Civic got a power bump to 170hp with a slight bump up to 116tq. This engine had higher compression (10.4 vs. 10.2) and revised camshafts. No idea what, specifically, was revised with them.

Sounds like it's already compliant to the regs to me. I'm betting that all the bits n pieces are the same general bits as the USDM one, so grind off the "B16A" off the block and ensure all the parts meets the US-specs and the STL limits (e.g. 11:1 compression, .425 lift valves).

Remember, STx has the "alternate parts source language just like IT. So if the parts are the same, we don't care about the source. The only time this becomes an issue is if the JDM version has something special like crankshaft/weights/etc.

There was also the B16B offered in Japan for the even yet later Civic Type R. This was a high zoot engine and, if I'm honest, I don't think that STL would benefit by including it into the ruleset.

I concur. I was looking into the history of that engine some time back and was VERY impressed with it, all while being really pissed we never got something like that here in the States. I've often given thought to replicating one of those cars, just for fun...white with ITR wheels, please.

What about the tranny legality?

Either the original transmission or an alternate transmission must be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same manufacturer as the vehicle (i.e., an Acura transmission may be installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in their entirety; any OEM gear sets that fit w/o any modifications to gears, shafts, and/or case are permitted.

Nothing in the regs limiting transaxles to US-market...

- GA

Edit: As I understand it, and very generally speaking, JDM engines were classified as B16A, without the number. US market engines got the number, such as B16A1/B16A2. If all the important bit are all the same (such as the intake manifold, throttle body, crankshaft and case, head casting, etc) then there's no need to request JDM/EDM approval. The parts are, functionally, all the same. The only time you need to be concerned is when the engine may have some desired equipment that was not delivered on the US engine and does not comply to the STL regs (e.g., bigger intake, larger throttle body, different-weighted crank, etc).

[Knestis]

... Either the original transmission or an alternate transmission must be used; the alternate transmission must be from the same manufacturer as the vehicle (i.e., an Acura transmission may be installed in a Honda car). Alternate transmissions must be used in their entirety; any OEM gear sets that fit w/o any modifications to gears, shafts, and/or case are permitted.

Nothing in the regs limiting transaxles to US-market...

Ro, rearrry...?? Ruh-roh, Rastro!

K

[Greg Amy]

I don't think that is necessarily an oversight. I can inquire if it's intentional before someone invests the coin.

I personally don't have an issue with it. Unlike variability in engine outputs, there's lesser variability in transmissions/transaxles. Gear ratios are free already (using factory gearsets); I think of you can find a suitable 6-speed to replace that US-spec 5-spped, go for it. Just remember that there's only so much modding you're allowed to do to make it fit ("if it doesn't say you can...") and "...must not relocate the engine or transmission in any direction."

Is the Prof thinking Euro 6-speed now? - GA

[Knestis]

The homologation rules have varied over the years but FIA Group 2, 4, A, and N have variously required that certain numbers of a particular specification of a car be produced to be eligible. That means some gearboxes with pretty special ratios have, at some point or another, been offered for sale in those homologation specials (albeit not quite off of dealers' showroom floors) - in places "not in the US."

K

[Xian]

Interesting... all makes complete sense but is just different from where me head is coming from IT. I think the inclusion of this engine should help encourage more folks to build the EF chassis for the class
I know it's top of the list for me right now if I ever make a return to car ownership.

Question on the gearset thing... Is the intent that a gearset be a complete "set" of gears or that a gearset refer to a *single* OE gear. i.e. can one mix and match gears for a best of breed tranny ratio or does it need to remain a complete internal assembly of 1-5?

[Greg Amy]

The intent is that you can take any pairs of gears and mix-n-match into whatever box they'll fit into, assuming no mods to make it fit. so you can take the first gear from the CRX and the second from the ITR, and the third from the Integra, ad nauseum....we talked about the verbiage and decided that "sets" made more sense than "pairs"; if you can think of a better way to word it, please suggest...

Key philosophical basis: bolt in and it's OK. Gotta start machining parts/shafts/case to make it fit? No bueno.

- GA