STL engine builds?

[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.

[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!

[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]