December 2013 Fastrack

What's $2K in tow gas? please... (NOT!) If so, just hope you are the only guy in your region out east that tows out and your region has a tow fund!
 
K,

there may be several competitive NASA Honda Challenge H2 honda swaps in California. I think H2 with engine swaps might be decent in STL.

You might check out some of the NASA forums.

Tom
 
mossaidis said:
Just guessing here, I would imagine that many HC cars in H1 and H2 have JDM swaps.
Click to expand...
Likely. However the component parts are typically the same as USDM engines expect for cams and pistons. If that were the case, and assuming the cams are within STL specs, I contend the engines are compliant to the regs due to the "aftermarket source" reg and specific JDM approval is not required.

I've gotten into spirited debates with folks over this interpretation. Many contend that since the engine has "B16A" (or whatever JDM designation) stamped on it, that automatically makes it non-compliant. I disagree. The reg states something like parts must be "the exact equivalent of the original parts". However if we can obtain parts from, say, NAPA and use those, are you going to argue that the NAPA parts are not compliant because they may have different part numbers cast into, or stamped on, them? In my mind, if the parts are dimensionally and metallurgical the same between the USDM and JDM engines, and no component exceeds either OE or STL-allowed specs, then it's compliant to the STCS.

If having that "B16A" stamped on the block bothers your competition, then just grind it off.

- GA, inviting people to read his signature at the bottom...
 
Aren't JDM engines specifically disallowed except for specific line-item inclusion?

While I understand your position, and tend to agree with the fact that the resultant unit would be compliant, it would seem that starting with a non-USDM core is not allowed specifically by the rules and any 'core' without proof of USDM origin would be technically illegal.

Maybe a rules re-write is in order?
 
I guess I am thinking more along the lines that if the "A" of B16A bothers the competition then that is a reason to add one to the "B16"
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Maybe a rules re-write is in order?
Click to expand...
Nope. Alternate parts are allowed per the regs, as long as they're the same part (dimensions and materials). As long as the specs are the same, the parts are allowed.

If you disassemble both a USDM and a JDM engine, spread the parts all across the tech shed floor and compare them, and find that they're all exactly the same part, yet the only difference is one is stamped "A" and one is stamped "B", then - as per Roffe Corollary - "if it says you can, then you bloody well can!" And if you counter that the stamps and casting marks and ink spots and everything else has to match on allowed replacement parts, then I'd counter the regulation is completely pointless, because were a supplier to attempt to sell parts with all the same casting marks and stamps and ink spots they'd get sued by the OE manufacturer.

The reg is clear: the parts must meet "dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer".

These do. They're compliant.

And, before this board gets all high and mighty about it, maybe it should look inward to find out where that reg came from...and where else its interpretations may apply...?

- GA

P.S. Here's the reg:

Replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer, unless otherwise allowed in the Super Touring category or class rules.
Click to expand...
"Same old axe. Replaced the handle twice and the head once, but it's still the same ole axe."
 
mossaidis said:
... enjoy this long, boring, non-racing (a few exceptions) weekend.
Click to expand...
Give me the Cliff's Notes version...I'm busy drinking beer.

It's always been my contention that extra-US-market engine are compliant as basis for IT/ST builds as long as the components used are exactly the same as the US-spec car. This goes back to the early 2000s when someone (honestly, not me or "a friend") wanted to use a JDM SR20DE as a basis to build an ITA engine. In my opinion, it was legal to use a JDM SR20DE to build an ITA engine, as long as everything that ended up in the final assembly was the same - dimensionally and metallurgically - as the US SR20DE.

Same applies to STL. If someone wants to run, for example, a B16A (versus a US-spec B16A2) in STL in their Civic, I say it's compliant as long as the compression ratio is below 11:1 and the total valve lift is within .425" (dunno if it is). I know the B16A has different pistons and cams, but the compression ratio is within 11:1. And pistons and rods (and cams) are free (within prep limits.)

Now, if someone installs a JDM B16A engine with some wild-ass intake manifold and throttle body that was never installed in the US and tosses that into the car? Not compliant. Parts are decisively not what was installed in a US-spec car.

Otherwise, in the end, it really is the same thing, except for what the Shinto eunich ex-Ninja monk stamps on the block as it passed by on the production line. Compliant to the alternate parts letter, and compliant to the alternate parts spirit.

- GA
 
Greg Amy said:
Give me the Cliff's Notes version...I'm busy drinking beer.

It's always been my contention that extra-US-market engine are compliant as basis for IT/ST builds as long as the components used are exactly the same as the US-spec car. This goes back to the early 2000s when someone (honestly, not me or "a friend") wanted to use a JDM SR20DE as a basis to build an ITA engine. In my opinion, it was legal to use a JDM SR20DE to build an ITA engine, as long as everything that ended up in the final assembly was the same - dimensionally and metallurgically - as the US SR20DE.

Same applies to STL. If someone wants to run, for example, a B16A (versus a US-spec B16A2) in STL in their Civic, I say it's compliant as long as the compression ratio is below 11:1 and the total valve lift is within .425" (dunno if it is). I know the B16A has different pistons and cams, but the compression ratio is within 11:1. And pistons and rods (and cams) are free (within prep limits.)

Now, if someone installs a JDM B16A engine with some wild-ass intake manifold and throttle body that was never installed in the US and tosses that into the car? Not compliant. Parts are decisively not what was installed in a US-spec car.

Otherwise, in the end, it really is the same thing, except for what the Shinto eunich ex-Ninja monk stamps on the block as it passed by on the production line. Compliant to the alternate parts letter, and compliant to the alternate parts spirit.

- GA
Click to expand...

And there you have the rub, because:

e. It is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body from either the chassis or the installed engine.
1. Regardless of the intake chosen, the total number of throttle bodies must remain the same as the installed engine.

and:

2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air throttling device (e.g., throttle body, carburetor) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise.

If you install the JDM motor then you have to install the JDM ITB manifold, which as you point out isn't allowed as the JDM is a non-USDM item.
 
No.

Because in Greg's example the "installed engine" is an OE, US-spec engine. The PARTS of that engine may be from the original sold-in-'merica car, the Honda dealer, the local Pep Boys, or from his eunuch friends on Mount Fuji - as long as they are all of the spec designated for the stock car OR within requirements where allowances are provided by the rules.

K
 
I see and understand the logic. However I also see an specific requirement for the engine to be as delivered for the USDM. The rules seem to be at odds with each other.

'You can't use anything but a USDM engine'
'You can use any part from any world market so long as it's exactly like the USDM version'

I don't see this as good rule writing.

Can't you just say, 'Only USDM engine may be used or their exact equivalents from other DM's'?

Good stuff. I see both sides - and when you do, I think a clarification is in order.
 
Knestis said:
No.

Because in Greg's example the "installed engine" is an OE, US-spec engine. The PARTS of that engine may be from the original sold-in-'merica car, the Honda dealer, the local Pep Boys, or from his eunuch friends on Mount Fuji - as long as they are all of the spec designated for the stock car OR within requirements where allowances are provided by the rules.

K
Click to expand...

But, you're not installing the US-spec engine, you're installing the JDM-spec engine and calling it the same as the USDM plus allowed modifications. To do this you have to violate the stock intake manifold rule, because the JDM and USDM manifolds aren't the same. It seems pretty clear to me, you need to specifically allow the JDM motor or remove the intake manifold/throttle body number rules to make this legal.
 
the point of the USDM only engine rule is compliance enforcement and staying away from small run homologation specials which we colonists rarely get.

a USDM/STL spec B16A is no different than the same B16A2 or A3 REGARDLESS of the stamping on the block. that's all it is, stamping.

a JDM B16B, however, is verboten unless specifically allowed by the CRB/STAC and added in the allowance table in the GCR. same would be true of some odd JDM intake as in tGA's example. the installed engine is the engine you say it is. "This is a B16A2" means so long as it matches that description in ALL relevant ways, you're good. it could say B18C5 on the block and you could STILL be compliant (to use a USDM part swap reference)

and As far as I can see - the same IS allowed in IT. foreign sourced blocks no different than a USDM one match the letter of the rule.

happy Turkey day everyone - I'll be racing this weekend, in a way underbuilt MR2 on street tires having fun and getting passed.
 
Yup, what Kirk and Chip said. No regs clarification needed.

Andy Bettencourt said:
I don't see this as good rule writing.
Click to expand...

Knestis said:
It's not any different than the equivalent part allowance in IT, is it...?
Click to expand...

How about "exactly the same"? I stole it from the ITCS and changed the word "Improved" to "Super"... ;)

Edit: James, just to clarify: I'm not saying you can use the intake from a JDM engine to build an STL engine, I'm saying you can use the parts from the JDM engine to build a compliant STL engine as long as the parts are exactly the same. Axe/Handle/same axe.

Happy Turkey Day!

- GA
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
Yup, what Kirk and Chip said. No regs clarification needed.





How about "exactly the same"? I stole it from the ITCS and changed the word "Improved" to "Super"... ;)


Happy Turkey Day!

- GA
Click to expand...

Except you also have the specific exclusion of anything non USDM as the core principle. That's where I get hung up. I fully believe the concept is legal but the rule greys it for me.

Have a great Holiday!
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Except you also have the specific exclusion of anything non USDM as the core principle.
Click to expand...
As does Improved Touring..."cars will be models as offered for sale in the United States." Yet it's also compliant to use JDM (and EDM) engines as parts sources for IT engines...as long as the parts are the same as USDM parts. - GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top