NASA GTS, which is about as open of a ruleset as you can get, does not even allow cross-make swaps. (They did at one point by manner of not prohibiting it, not it is prohibited)
Eurasian Engines - Proposal?
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
NASA GTS, which is about as open of a ruleset as you can get, does not even allow cross-make swaps. (They did at one point by manner of not prohibiting it, not it is prohibited)
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Uh oh!! Oh boy, I liked the box from this, the most high traffic site this side of TMZ!Holy CRAP, Jake! You didn't just link to the Sandbox did you? You know wha...
Regarding the RX-8, Chris, so, if a car does ok at a race that you go to, it's classed appropriately??
I'n not sure I follow how a car with 180hp at 3000 can possibly cmpete with a car with 180hp that weighs 500 pounds less and runs on the same rubber.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
As Andy said, Stephen, The STAC has decreed that they will use the 'double displacement' standard for rotaries when they class them in STL. So, a 1300cc 13B is the piston equivalent of 2.6 litres.
And STL is limited to cars less than 2.0 litres. No ITR BMW, for example, may run in any STL race.
But, a 2.0 litre ITR S2000 can run in it's IT configuration as it is 2.0 litres, but since the S2000 is on the chassis exclusion list in STL it may NOT run in STL configuration.
Follow? I missed it at first too.
Rabbit07
New member
Uh oh!! Oh boy, I liked the box from this, the most high traffic site this side of TMZ!
Regarding the RX-8, Chris, so, if a car does ok at a race that you go to, it's classed appropriately??
I'n not sure I follow how a car with 180hp at 3000 can possibly cmpete with a car with 180hp that weighs 500 pounds less and runs on the same rubber.
I am really getting tired of F;d up comments like that. You guys have proven to me that your commentary is useless in this situation and really not worth the effort.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Regarding the RX-8, Chris, so, if a car does ok at a race that you go to, it's classed appropriately??
I'n not sure I follow how a car with 180hp at 3000 can possibly cmpete with a car with 180hp that weighs 500 pounds less and runs on the same rubber.
It's not supposed to be able to compete. The class is for piston engines. The STAC has just given the Renesis a place to 'be' in STL. The 'get a taste of National racing' theory. Other classes use it too. Once we (the collective we) stop trying to make every car fit into STL, the sooner we will shut up.
Z3_GoCar
New member
Forget even trying to get every make into STL. There's only one BMW euro option that would be interesting and they only made 2,600 of them total, and it's still not competitive with the Honda option. If I had a care for STL, I'd request the used of a cut down Individual Throttle Body intake from the USDM s54, and head porting at no penalty, as that'd be the only way the USDM M42's and M44's would be able to touch the Honda/Acura's on power. Otherwise, with only the approved mods they'll only get to the N45b20's 170-180hp range at best. So even with select Euro options nothing works.
Oh, yeah if you want to know what the N45b20 is, it's from the 320Si, and only 2600 were made as homologation specials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N45
Flow bench data to show why this is so:
http://www.e30m3project.com/e30m3performance/tech_articles/engine-tech/flow-1/chart-4.htm
Oh, yeah if you want to know what the N45b20 is, it's from the 320Si, and only 2600 were made as homologation specials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N45
Flow bench data to show why this is so:
http://www.e30m3project.com/e30m3performance/tech_articles/engine-tech/flow-1/chart-4.htm
Last edited:
Rabbit07
New member
See the March Fastrack for my request for ITBs for the M42. Currently not going to happen
Z3_GoCar
New member
I saw that... though their response didn't make sense to me, unless you were asking for the S50 euro ITB's. You still might have the option if you were to make a M42 powered e46, using the ITB's from an e-46 M3. Swap the motor and keep the chassis ITB intake manifold. It'd be nice if other chassis could have that option other than the e-46, e-36 Z3, and e-85 Z4's.
Rabbit07
New member
I saw that... though their response didn't make sense to me, unless you were asking for the S50 euro ITB's. You still might have the option if you were to make a M42 powered e46, using the ITB's from an e-46 M3. Swap the motor and keep the chassis ITB intake manifold. It'd be nice if other chassis could have that option other than the e-46, e-36 Z3, and e-85 Z4's.
Now that is out of the box thinking. Love it!
If this does pass, how many of you are going to actually be interested in building an STL car?
Any "R" motor would need to be banned as well, if someone had a B16B at ~180+ crank hp at 1600cc weight.....intake lift is above the limit anyway.
Im also interested in head swaps between different motors from the same series but that might be too much to police.
Ex. B16A2/3 head on a B18C1 block...
Any "R" motor would need to be banned as well, if someone had a B16B at ~180+ crank hp at 1600cc weight.....intake lift is above the limit anyway.
Im also interested in head swaps between different motors from the same series but that might be too much to police.
Ex. B16A2/3 head on a B18C1 block...
DoubleXL240Z
New member
James and Chris, Look up an S42 engine!! and hold onto your socks!! 1999cc's and 315HP!!!! Stock with ITBs!I saw that... though their response didn't make sense to me, unless you were asking for the S50 euro ITB's. You still might have the option if you were to make a M42 powered e46, using the ITB's from an e-46 M3. Swap the motor and keep the chassis ITB intake manifold. It'd be nice if other chassis could have that option other than the e-46, e-36 Z3, and e-85 Z4's.
DoubleXL240Z
New member
e36 320i STW pila.
Baza motora je (m42b18)1.8 iS
s42B20 (Version: 08/1995):
* Stroke = 85mm
* Bore = 86.5mm
* Compression ratio = 12.4:1
* Total displacement = 1.997ccm
* Rod length = 145mm
* Inlet cam = 312 degrees (spread: 94) (Eö=40, Es=48 (@ 2mm lift) )
* Exhaust cam = 304 degrees (spread: 98) (Aö=45, As=28 (@ 2mm lift) )
* Inlet Valve diameter = 35mm
* Exhaust valve diameter = 32mm
* Inlet port metrics: W=52mm, H=29.7, Radius=14.85mm
* Slide throttle diameter = 46mm
* Header = 4-2
* ECU = ECU4A.1
* Power DIN 70020 = 285PS / 207kw @ 8300rpm
* Torque DIN 70020 = 245Nm @ 7000rpm
* Max rpm = 8500rpm (FIA regulation "SuperTouring")
* Gasoline quality = Super Plus (Oktan min. ROZ 98)
Baza motora je (m42b18)1.8 iS
s42B20 (Version: 08/1995):
* Stroke = 85mm
* Bore = 86.5mm
* Compression ratio = 12.4:1
* Total displacement = 1.997ccm
* Rod length = 145mm
* Inlet cam = 312 degrees (spread: 94) (Eö=40, Es=48 (@ 2mm lift) )
* Exhaust cam = 304 degrees (spread: 98) (Aö=45, As=28 (@ 2mm lift) )
* Inlet Valve diameter = 35mm
* Exhaust valve diameter = 32mm
* Inlet port metrics: W=52mm, H=29.7, Radius=14.85mm
* Slide throttle diameter = 46mm
* Header = 4-2
* ECU = ECU4A.1
* Power DIN 70020 = 285PS / 207kw @ 8300rpm
* Torque DIN 70020 = 245Nm @ 7000rpm
* Max rpm = 8500rpm (FIA regulation "SuperTouring")
* Gasoline quality = Super Plus (Oktan min. ROZ 98)
Though that thing would slot nicely into STU (and would drop right into Eric's car...) - GA
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Chris, hey, I'm not trying to attack you...
But, look at what you wrote. I'm sure you were just typing off the top of your head, but really....and I'm not trying to be the biggest dick around... that statement makes little sense.
First, are you REALLY going to look at it if it doesn't do well???? And if so, based on what sample size? (Forgetting the whole what defines the 'that far off' aspect). Basicaly, you're saying that the STAC is going to mointor performance and make adjustments. I really don't think thats the case, but, obviously, I could be wrong.
Second, you said you were sure it would do fine. Well, yea, maybe against unprepared STL cars, or double dippers, but who cares about that? I can't see how the motor has a snowballs chance in hell of competing when it's hundreds of pounds heavy.
Listen, I'm of the philosophy that if you list an engine, make it so that it fits. If it doesn't fit,* then don't list it. I'm not sure I see the point of listing it, but thats based on my philosophy.
*It seems that it misses the class standards because you consider it to be 2.6L, above the max size, and it's stock rating is well above the max allowed. IIRC the stock rating is (was?) 238, which is right with the S2000 2.0L (240) that is excluded.
So, I'm sorry to piss you off, but your comments seemed at odds with my perception of reality.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
From the thread over on RRAX:
I suggested that they do some adders along those lines, James. So for, Peter doesn't seem to love it, LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkeane
Just a couple of points of clarification, the STAC have not changed the rear wheel drive multiplier. We have discussed it and we are going to continue to watch the performance levels. Jim (CRB member and friend) your STL Miata is currently only 60 pounds heavier than my Integra. I do not think we would change the RWD multiplier until after the Runoffs, and only if the data supports it.
I believe the bigger STL issue is to give the FWD strut cars an increased weight break. I do think a 5% (maybe more) deduct might be right for these cars. This would help the VW, Mazda, Neon, Nissan and Toyotas.
Interesting.
Peter, an interesting thought experiment would be to take a good RWD chassis from Honda and the best FWD chassis they have and put the same engine in them. Understand the driveline differences and adjust HP accordingly. So, in a race between an Integra and an S2000* say, with equal drivers, over an average track and a normal race distance, which will win? By how much? Most will say the S2000, and by more than 2.5% extra weight will equalize.
So, irregardless of the struts, the first thing** I see that needs to be nailed is the basic number for FWD vs RWD. Afterall, ALL cars are one or the other (or AWD). Once THAT is nailed, THEN a strut subtractor can be established.
I'd also suggest that, if you are going to give a subtractor to FWD cars with bad drive end geometry, then the same consideration should be given to RWD cars with bad drive end geometry. Now, you can do that as an adder, (as in add X% to cars with Double wishbone type suspensions on the drive end, OR, use those as the standard and subtract X% for cars that lack DW type suspensions on the drive end. Depends on what you consider your 'norm'. Seems like the bogey car has been the Integra, so yea, a subtractor for stut based cars would be the way to go.
Note that the X% RWD subtractor might not be the same percentage as the FWD subtractor. The committee might find that the negative effects of a bad suspension at the drive end is worse for a FWD car than a RWD car..
So, I'd see it playing out as something like:
Basic CC per pound math. (ie 1.8L =2430) Norm car is DW FWD.
RWD? Add 5%.
FWD with struts? Minus 2.5%
RWD with bad (non double wishbone type) suspension at drive end? Plus 5%, but minus 1%.
(Establish a policy on the order of math. ie, if RWD, add 5%, (2.0L =2700, plus 5%, (135) =2835, THEN minus 1% for a total of: 2806.65, rounded to 2805. OR, just use 4% from the start. Once rounding is done it likely makes little difference. 2700 x 4% =2808, rounded is 2810. Just do it the same every time)
So, a RWD car with a good suspension would be 7.5 % more than a FWD car with strut front.
I think the 5% factor is more appropriate, and looking at World Challenge weights backs that up. Also, HP levels are in the ITR-ish range, and experience there is that the FWD factor is pretty darn close.
Quote:
I am also making a pitch at the convention to allow non US spec engines in ST on a case by case basis. This would allow BMW to run the euro 2.0l in STL and will also help Nissan’s, Toyota’s, Subaru’s and VW.
PK
IF it helps diversity and getting more COMPETITIVE options, then I'm for it. I understand the issues are with understanding the allowances on a committee level, and that's tricky, but, overall, the pain is worth it.
*. Regarding the S2000, can you, Peter (since you were in on the inception of the class), or anyone, explain to me why the S2000 chassis is forbidden, BUT, the Miata (and, intheory, all cars like it) is allowed? Seems to me they share the same generic stuff. Yea wheelbase is different, but I KNOW you guys can't be parsing wheelbase differences as there aren't even chassis adders in the class. So what gives? Makes no sense to me.
DoubleXL240Z
New member
I'm going to jump in again. My biggest concern about any of this is "case by case basis". That is absolute BS!!!
Future quote; "You let the JDM XYZ in, but MY Euro ZYX can't! Thats not fair!"
People are screaming for a stable rule set, but than we are looking at a case by case basis on JDM (yo) and Euro/Aussie etc. So when the Euro surprise shows up and kicks their ass, than it gets booted or a trailer attached to it. Not very stable!! We are very familiar with the USDM engines and their potential, lets leave it at that.
I can understand the arguement regarding a worthwhile Nissan engine or whatever, but maybe its time for another car or class.
I have seen( actually looked at numbers) the S42, a 315 HP 2l exotic. a M52B20? ( I believe) its a 2l version of the 2.5l BMW motor used in a million e30s and e36s, 8500 rpm 6 cylinder. I was talking with a BMW nerd, and he brought up like 5 motors most have never heard of, all under 2l all with crazy hp numbers.
Rant off, I gotta go add 90 lbs to my car now!!
Future quote; "You let the JDM XYZ in, but MY Euro ZYX can't! Thats not fair!"
People are screaming for a stable rule set, but than we are looking at a case by case basis on JDM (yo) and Euro/Aussie etc. So when the Euro surprise shows up and kicks their ass, than it gets booted or a trailer attached to it. Not very stable!! We are very familiar with the USDM engines and their potential, lets leave it at that.
I can understand the arguement regarding a worthwhile Nissan engine or whatever, but maybe its time for another car or class.
I have seen( actually looked at numbers) the S42, a 315 HP 2l exotic. a M52B20? ( I believe) its a 2l version of the 2.5l BMW motor used in a million e30s and e36s, 8500 rpm 6 cylinder. I was talking with a BMW nerd, and he brought up like 5 motors most have never heard of, all under 2l all with crazy hp numbers. Rant off, I gotta go add 90 lbs to my car now!!
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I'm going to jump in again. My biggest concern about any of this is "case by case basis". That is absolute BS!!!
Future quote; "You let the JDM XYZ in, but MY Euro ZYX can't! Thats not fair!"
People are screaming for a stable rule set, but than we are looking at a case by case basis on JDM (yo) and Euro/Aussie etc. So when the Euro surprise shows up and kicks their ass, than it gets booted or a trailer attached to it. Not very stable!! We are very familiar with the USDM engines and their potential, lets leave it at that.
I can understand the arguement regarding a worthwhile Nissan engine or whatever, but maybe its time for another car or class.
Rant off, I gotta go add 90 lbs to my car now!!
Chris, I think what they are saying is actually consistent with what they are doing now. They currently exclude cars over a certain hp/litre threshold. It appears that they would do the same thing, using the same line in the sand, for non US models.
I really don't think somethings going to be allowed in, then get spanked with a lead paddle should it perform too well.