May 2011 Fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

Going to have to agree to disagree here. Requiring dyno sheets, doing research, etc. and being cautious in assessing them I think is the complete opposite of overly blind. And I personally think basing classing decisions on one or two verbal opinions from builders was far more dangerous.

I agree with you on the 30% rule.

But I think tagging the MR2 motor at 15% based on what we know now highlights a big problem with the Process. I still think it is entirely possible that motor can make 20% based on the build specs I've seen, and yet all I've got for "what we know" is a bunch of dyno plots, only one of which is a pretty good IT build, showing 15%. I can't see how that is conclusive in anyway.

I would love to see those 15% sheets. If they do exist (not questioning your integrity, just your memory LOL), then I can buy the 20% number. I don't remember seeing anything over 10-12%, but new stuff may be in-house.

 

[jjjanos]

Who votes what way and on what should be a matter of public record, otherwise the spectre of logrolling and backroom deals haunts the decisions of each and every committee. Once I know how and why one person voted for something, I know the opinions of those who voted the other way... i.e. the other way.

 

[JeffYoung]

You are always wise to question my memory, it's not as good as it should be....

I think the best we saw on an IT like build was 14%, which would be rounded up to 15%. I'll see if they are posted to the ITAC website.

At some point though, you have to wonder what the hell is going on with this motor. 10% gain on a mid 80s 4-valve motor? That would be a HUGE outlier for pretty much any other motor of that era.

I really do think -- and this is not "evidence" but it was part of my decision making process -- that because this car got stuck in ITA for so long, the motor really has not been developed to the max in IT trim, at least not like "modern" IT motors. I certainly don't have to preach to you about how much things have changed just in the last 10 years or so as fars as finding gains in the IT ruleset......

I would love to see those 15% sheets. If they do exist (not questioning your integrity, just your memory LOL), then I can buy the 20% number. I don't remember seeing anything over 10-12%, but new stuff may be in-house.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

At some point though, you have to wonder what the hell is going on with this motor. 10% gain on a mid 80s 4-valve motor? That would be a HUGE outlier for pretty much any other motor of that era.

Actually you don't have to wonder. Honda's are the exception, not the rule. When you look at the port size of some of these motors, you will quickly understand.

Add to that the fact that just because it has a DOHC set-up doesn't mean the intake is worth a crap, or it has an oversized AFM, or anything that can be taken advantage of when you put a header and open air filter on. Know any Toyota's that have EVER outperformed their initial process number or that needed to be adjusted because they were an overdog?

Me either.

One of my Honda buddies saw a Miata head on the bench and laughed out loud.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Who votes what way and on what should be a matter of public record, otherwise the spectre of logrolling and backroom deals haunts the decisions of each and every committee. Once I know how and why one person voted for something, I know the opinions of those who voted the other way... i.e. the other way.

I would love to have the votes published too. Not an ITAC issue however. Write in to the CRB.

 

[gran racing]

Jeff, no one is saying that a pod cast of the ITAC be produced and released on the web. Yes, members should feel like they can debate on various issues without a backlash from members. At the same time, why shouldn't members know what's going on.

A part of me thinks that the ACs should publish minutes or at least a summary of what was discussed in the various calls. I admit to wondering what has been going on since use of the process on existing cars was approved. Or what is currently being discussed.

Travis, for what it's worth you sure do come off as not caring on this tread. I hope it's just a matter of some frustration showing though as I do genuinely think you care.

 

[quadzjr]

Wow alot has been said in one day.. ohh the times when I was able to get on here during the day.

the highest number I have seen is from teh 10/10ths IT build built by xxxx. It had a tuneable ECU (MS I believe), and did some "grey area" cam timing. he got 108 to the wheels.

so 108/(112*.85) = 113.4%

That motor cost rumored in excess of 5k as a delivered tuned package. some believe it was in excess of 7k.

In either case. I did a BUNCH of research and submitted an engineering paper on the differences of 4AGE and why they do not respond to IT mods to the ITAC. I understand why it may come off as biased.. so that is why I tried to remain as straight and honest as possible. I have also had a long standing invitation to anyone to prove me wrong. If I didn't have 100% confidence that I am telling the truth that would be a very scary proposition to make openly on the internet.

If you want even more dry reading there is SAE papers on the matter as well.

So even when I finish my motor I am going to have to weight for someone else? I am planning/hoping to beat the 108hp mark. My goal is 110.. but we will see.

as for the questions 3 pages ago.. my header was built on the dyno utilizing varying lenght slip on extensions. Once the best result was achieved the pipes were welded together. This header matches within an 1" or so of the math as well as what Burns predicted. This is the same method that Blake did with the 914 he built. As for computer my computer is a chipped tuned factory computer. It has a significantly more aggressive timing curve, non-existent redline, and now goes open loop and keeps a very nice AFR from 4500+ rpm. Is it a motec or typicall programble ECU.. no not yet. however other people that race ITB MR2s that have tuned programable ECU and I made more power with my setup.

Like has been mentioned.. If it is proven wrong.. then there is a possiblity to fix it. Currently they are running times roughly around or for the higher prepped cars/drivers just in front of the leaders of ITC. Far from worrying about ever being an overdog.

Since I don't see anybody else is attempting 10/10ths motor I am doomed.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Great stuff Steve. Not your average 'my motor made xxx' letter.

 

[JeffYoung]

Steve, I read your paper and you know I agree with the premise which it was submitted to support -- that the 4AGE is different from the Atlantic motors.

I also respect your build efforts. Very impressive. At the same time, I certainly have learned that every time I think I've run out of ideas for more power....something else pops up on the radar. What kind of intake testing have you done? Do you have a Burns merge collector? And so on.

Check my numbers, but it seems to me that if you get 114 whp that's 19.6 percent, or effectively 20% gain. That's just six more hp than the 108 build you've seen. Getting close to dyno noise really.

20% is not out of the question. And 25% may not be, although I would not have and did not vote for that percentage.

 

[JeffYoung]

We were doing this for a while (publishing minutes). We should restart it. I will raise that next meeting.

Jeff, no one is saying that a pod cast of the ITAC be produced and released on the web. Yes, members should feel like they can debate on various issues without a backlash from members. At the same time, why shouldn't members know what's going on.

A part of me thinks that the ACs should publish minutes or at least a summary of what was discussed in the various calls. I admit to wondering what has been going on since use of the process on existing cars was approved. Or what is currently being discussed.

Travis, for what it's worth you sure do come off as not caring on this tread. I hope it's just a matter of some frustration showing though as I do genuinely think you care.

 

[quadzjr]

Steve, I read your paper and you know I agree with the premise which it was submitted to support -- that the 4AGE is different from the Atlantic motors.

I also respect your build efforts. Very impressive. At the same time, I certainly have learned that every time I think I've run out of ideas for more power....something else pops up on the radar. What kind of intake testing have you done? Do you have a Burns merge collector? And so on.

Check my numbers, but it seems to me that if you get 114 whp that's 19.6 percent, or effectively 20% gain. That's just six more hp than the 108 build you've seen. Getting close to dyno noise really.

20% is not out of the question. And 25% may not be, although I would not have and did not vote for that percentage.

The premise of the paper was just informational.. it does prove the astronomical differences between an FA motor and the one found inteh MR@.. it also goes into some detail about port flows, and intake velocity (limiting factor in IT trim)

I agree 6 hp would be absolutely. I ask you to remember that 6 hp is a harder number to get when you base is 100hp compared something with say 200hp.. 6 hp to the wheels is in fact it is exactly twice as hard mathmatcially

the car with 108 had a custom timing gear with his own built in advance for the cams. I am not doing that. I got 106 with my setup..

though these fighting for 1 or 2 hp in my opinion is also within noise from one dyno to another.. I use the same dyno everytime for consistency and repeatabliy.. however this noise is possibly causing my car to be 95 or 190lbs over weight. As 5hp would result in roughly 5% engine gain or 95LBS in ITB weight.

The reason why a real 6 hp and not dyno noise is hard to acheive is detailed in the paper.. the intake ports are huge and have an very large angle. The port is larger than the size you see on an SBC of SBF feeding a much smaller clyinder with cams that have very little duration and lift.

Yes, intake tuning has been done, and dyno proven the smaller (length wise) you can make it the better it gets.. but this is all still relative.. we are still talking a hp or so. It doesn't have to be a burns stainless collector any collector that merges in the same manner (smooth transision between tubes, no sharp changes in volume (causign pressure drops and sonic reverb)). The one advantage is that burns is already assembled and you do not have to fabricate it. I looked into this ALOT about 3 years ago and collects over a dozen cards from people at the PRI expo in orlando. I do plan on reduming my header.. I want to try a stepped design as well as playing witha long tube 4-2-1. Just to try to regain some torque.. Depending on model I am down 10 to 20ft/lbs to my competitiors.

I assume that all these little things is the reason why my motor makes on average 3-4hp more than the average IT 4AGE build. Sad thing is that my motor cost significnatly more than theirs and only got 4 hp on them. I feel kinda foolish because of that.

BTW Jeff I really appreciate your time in discussing in the matter and infact it does not bother me to much on what side of things you sit. Everybody has their opinion and that is how and why committes work. but you also listen and discuss and ask questions. I am an engineer that can't let any question sit unanswered. I am just trying to possibly bring a new light (if there is one to be had) to you or anybody that will listen. With the current classification I am charged with the task (self inflicted) to do what is out of the current relm of the physical world we live in AND within the IT rule set

IT is my world. I really like the class and enjoy the racing and the friends. Something that I didn't see as much when we went national level prod racing.

 

[JeffYoung]

Steve, no worries. You've always been great to discuss things with.

I vacillitate between 15 and 20 on this one. I hate to admit it but the "architecture" thinking I am opposed to in almost all cases creeps in a bit here. The motor is a godo design on paper and SHOULD make more..but it doesn't. Somethign of a mystery.

In any event, more tomorrow, and tahnks for all of the effort you have put in. It was and remains very helpful.

The premise of the paper was just informational.. it does prove the astronomical differences between an FA motor and the one found inteh MR@.. it also goes into some detail about port flows, and intake velocity (limiting factor in IT trim)

I agree 6 hp would be absolutely. I ask you to remember that 6 hp is a harder number to get when you base is 100hp compared something with say 200hp.. 6 hp to the wheels is in fact it is exactly twice as hard mathmatcially

the car with 108 had a custom timing gear with his own built in advance for the cams. I am not doing that. I got 106 with my setup..

though these fighting for 1 or 2 hp in my opinion is also within noise from one dyno to another.. I use the same dyno everytime for consistency and repeatabliy.. however this noise is possibly causing my car to be 95 or 190lbs over weight. As 5hp would result in roughly 5% engine gain or 95LBS in ITB weight.

The reason why a real 6 hp and not dyno noise is hard to acheive is detailed in the paper.. the intake ports are huge and have an very large angle. The port is larger than the size you see on an SBC of SBF feeding a much smaller clyinder with cams that have very little duration and lift.

Yes, intake tuning has been done, and dyno proven the smaller (length wise) you can make it the better it gets.. but this is all still relative.. we are still talking a hp or so. It doesn't have to be a burns stainless collector any collector that merges in the same manner (smooth transision between tubes, no sharp changes in volume (causign pressure drops and sonic reverb)). The one advantage is that burns is already assembled and you do not have to fabricate it. I looked into this ALOT about 3 years ago and collects over a dozen cards from people at the PRI expo in orlando. I do plan on reduming my header.. I want to try a stepped design as well as playing witha long tube 4-2-1. Just to try to regain some torque.. Depending on model I am down 10 to 20ft/lbs to my competitiors.

I assume that all these little things is the reason why my motor makes on average 3-4hp more than the average IT 4AGE build. Sad thing is that my motor cost significnatly more than theirs and only got 4 hp on them. I feel kinda foolish because of that.

BTW Jeff I really appreciate your time in discussing in the matter and infact it does not bother me to much on what side of things you sit. Everybody has their opinion and that is how and why committes work. but you also listen and discuss and ask questions. I am an engineer that can't let any question sit unanswered. I am just trying to possibly bring a new light (if there is one to be had) to you or anybody that will listen. With the current classification I am charged with the task (self inflicted) to do what is out of the current relm of the physical world we live in AND within the IT rule set

IT is my world. I really like the class and enjoy the racing and the friends. Something that I didn't see as much when we went national level prod racing.

 

[quadzjr]

I guess it depends on what papers you are looking at when you say "on paper". haha.

if you were looking papers at port shapes, flows, angles, valve angles, came duration and lift, and factory overlap, and intake manifold design (each port is fed by two very small and long runners). you can also look into the weight of the entire rotating assembly. It is significatly heavier than any VW or honda that I have seen in teh 1.6 to 1.8L range. Another thing is the transmission .. the internals are extremely robust. has the same aluminum case as any many other FWD cars, except the 4AGE trans weighs 85lbs!

The "honda" guys at the shop have made it a sport of comparing how heavy the overbuilt toyota part is compared to the compareable honda part. The toyota design may last for 250k miles with oil changes but doesn't help me for track purposes.

Yeah I guess we will see what is going to be written tomorrow.

night.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Check my numbers, but it seems to me that if you get 114 whp that's 19.6 percent, or effectively 20% gain. That's just six more hp than the 108 build you've seen. Getting close to dyno noise really.

20% is not out of the question. And 25% may not be, although I would not have and did not vote for that percentage.

It's also almost another 6-7%.

Be careful not to extrapolate TOO much your experiences with a 3.8L V8 to a twin cam 1.6L with small port heads and an ass-backward packaging setup.

110whp on one of these (also with only about 15% losses, Corolla another 5% down) seems like a legitimate stretch goal. That would put it at 2250 in ITB.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Steve, no worries. You've always been great to discuss things with.

I vacillitate between 15 and 20 on this one. I hate to admit it but the "architecture" thinking I am opposed to in almost all cases creeps in a bit here. The motor is a godo design on paper and SHOULD make more..but it doesn't. Somethign of a mystery.

So I have to wonder what you mean when you say this Jeff. Simply 16V and DOHC? No accounts for intake design? Port size etc? AFM size? Throttle body size? Should the Type R make 25% because it has the same 'design'? S2000? Do all rotories make the same increases? V8's? Hell no.

The mystery of why this car and most Toyotas under-respond is there for you I think.

 

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I think it's dangerous to be so 25% centric, and require what is easy to see as near impossible levels of proof to budge from that level. (And I address that as "Jeff" because you're really the only one engaging in any legitimate dialog from the ITAC)

You've gotten more data, more real solid info on this motor than ANY I can remember in the past. (The RX-8 got two numbers from two builders as I recall that were within 1%, ) and if that's not enough to budge from the 25%, then basically, you (the ITAC) have created a defacto standard, and our jobs as competitors is merely to find the car that exceeds the 25%. Win.

And that's too bad because that creates a "car of the year" class, which is EXACTLY what the Process was created to avoid.

Version ONE of the Process stated, as step 3 (IIRC) to "Check and make sure the numbers make sense. IF known numbers are available, use those", or something to that effect.
The problem of that is, of course, subjectivity. That's why V2 had policy implementations to determine what level of proof was needed. It appears that level has become impossibly high, and that's a shame.

If this is the new paradigm, then is it safe to assume that you'll be revisiting some classifications done that are off the 25% base? Like the ITA CRX? I bet the ITAC has NO dyno sheets for those cars. And that's just a start.

yea, I doubt anybody wants to go there, because it's obviously working so well. But hey, you can't have a policy that is implemented now and then, but wasn't back then. Can't have it both ways.

Here with the MR2 you've gotten more data than nearly any I can recall, and while they aren't all the same build, the numbers jive and make sense. You have cammed motors falling well short of the factor the ITAC has insisted on.

Honestly, it saddening to see such an illogical classification, especially when doing the right thing has no risk! If you make a mistake, you have the capacity to fix it. Andy's right, name ONE Toyota that even comes close to meeting it's factor. This one won't be the one to break the trend, clearly.

 

[JeffYoung]

Jake we moved the MR2 off of default. The default (which I disagree with) in ITB for a multivalve is 30%. We agreed to go lower. I just could not convince the committee to go any lower than 25%, and given the dyno data I've seen I still do think 20% is within the realm of reason and 25% while very unlikely at least very remotely possible.

Steve's posts on his engine build show a lot of understand of the weaknesses of the engine but even his dyno data confirms for me that I think my vote was right. The motor probably can make 15% and there is a so-so chance an extremely good build could make 20%.

But I don't agree with the idea we have reams of data for this car. We do not have a lot of IT builds. It's not like what I undersand you guys had for the E36. Hell, I've seen way more top flight L24 and L26 dyno plots than this. I guess I'm lucky S has been so easy -- you guys did a good job with it -- in that all the top cars are pretty known quantities.

Andy, I agree with you that if you are going to use architecture in any meaningful way, you have to look beyond just displacement and number of valves. You make a good point there.

But where I do disagree with you and Jake is on evidentiary standard. I do feel strongly the safest thing to do in almost all cases is go with the 25% default. Deviations should be rare, and should be based on far more than a single data point, from analogies to the same motor in other levels of prep, or from (in my opinion the worst source of data) guesses by an engine builder.

To me, this is the best safeguard against allwoing the last bit of subjectivity in the Process become a tool for gamesmanship. VERY FEW cars should move off of 25%. Mine. The Z cars. Rotaries. The E36. The CRX. Unless and until there is a very good body of data on IT builds to do so.

But when we don't have that -- IT build data -- we should be very hesistant to do anything but default.

 

[Chip42]

But where I do disagree with you and Jake is on evidentiary standard. I do feel strongly the safest thing to do in almost all cases is go with the 25% default. Deviations should be rare, and should be based on far more than a single data point, from analogies to the same motor in other levels of prep, or from (in my opinion the worst source of data) guesses by an engine builder.

To me, this is the best safeguard against allwoing the last bit of subjectivity in the Process become a tool for gamesmanship. VERY FEW cars should move off of 25%. Mine. The Z cars. Rotaries. The E36. The CRX. Unless and until there is a very good body of data on IT builds to do so.

But when we don't have that -- IT build data -- we should be very hesistant to do anything but default.

I agree with hesitation regarding moving from default, and the desire to have comprehensive data confirming the decision to do so. I also agree that an IT build is a different animal, and that the common belief among engine builders and the like that "stock" motors won't build power is rooted in a day before the levels of tuning sofistication we now have, and the fact that it's easier to drop in some cams than to do that tuning in the first place.

But I don't think it "should" be a rare occasion that a car falls outside of the standard IT gain. Rather,I think it's a happy coincidence that such a nice, even number (125%) happens to work so well for so many popular cars. There's certainly no DOT rule stating that engines should be choked back by 20% of their capability, and designers aren't in a rush to make more "potentially" powerful motors. I'm betting that there are more cars on the list that, when built to 10/10ths, will fall more than 5% off of the default 125%, but they aren't popular enough to garner the attention or the data.

The 4AGE was "optimized" by toyota to make best use of the major hard parts, and it seems they did a good job, because no one has been able to eek much power out of the things, even using the old tricks like compression and cam. toyota redesigned the ports around 1990 in order to make it work better, because they couldn't keep up with Honda, etc with just an updated ECU and exhaust, they had to do more fundamental redesign. a couple of years later, Yamaha gave them the 20V head with MUCH improved port profiles and all of a sudden they have a B16 fighter. I'm not saying that a full tilt IT build couldn't gain some hp, nor am I rejecting the performance benefits of increased area under the curve. what I am saying is that until there's a number that feels even remotely plausable (maybe 120%) there will not be many people dumping the money and effort into a build that they "know" will not have a proportional payoff. and if someone does manage to get to 120%, or even find that extra 1 or 2% then who cares? it would round down anyhow, and really, are there NO cars in the ITCS that are making a tick above their process power number??? if it gets too powerful, put weight back on it. guess what, though: you won't have to.
I know I'm going all out on everything BUT the motor on my car. I'll get to it eventually, maybe. but watching Steve go through the paces has been frustrating.

the ITB/C 130% number is complete BS. any deviation from the 125% norm should be done on a case by case basis with documented evidence of the IT power potential. just because the sticker on the car says "ITB" doesn't make the air anf fuel burn differently than if it were in A.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

But where I do disagree with you and Jake is on evidentiary standard. I do feel strongly the safest thing to do in almost all cases is go with the 25% default. Deviations should be rare, and should be based on far more than a single data point, from analogies to the same motor in other levels of prep, or from (in my opinion the worst source of data) guesses by an engine builder.

To me, this is the best safeguard against allwoing the last bit of subjectivity in the Process become a tool for gamesmanship. VERY FEW cars should move off of 25%. Mine. The Z cars. Rotaries. The E36. The CRX. Unless and until there is a very good body of data on IT builds to do so.

But when we don't have that -- IT build data -- we should be very hesistant to do anything but default.

And we do disagree. I believe you use the 25% as a starting point, see what information is out there and make an EDUCATED guess. Sticking with 25% is simply stubborn in my mind because it is no way 'more correct' than any %.

My issue with the description you write is that you put the safegaurds and internal gamesmanship ABOVE 'your best effort'.

The safegaurds were in place when I left, the gamesmanship was gone - or ther was a mechanism to squash it...all while providing a path for 'better guesses'.

This MR2 issue proves only one thing to me, that the committee would rather 'look' like they aren't fiddling with the numbers than actually putting the car at a number they are pretty sure is accurate...and the majority of the IT community has been sure of for years. Single point of data or not, weigh it's value. You have a tremendous resource that is getting counted as equally as 'It's an Atlantic motor'.

It seems like the committee is more formula than Process these days, and I think that hurts the classifications and will lead to MORE overdogs because you aren't willing to go with solid info, regardless of quantity.

(On edit: I know you are walking the fine line between your opinions and the committees opinions so please don't take any of this personally, I speak mostly of the current committee-wide attitudes - or my perception of it based on your reamarks. As ALWAYS, thanks for being one of the VERY few who is willing to keep the info flowing)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I don't think it "should" be a rare occasion that a car falls outside of the standard IT gain. Rather,I think it's a happy coincidence that such a nice, even number (125%) happens to work so well for so many popular cars. ....<>...... I'm betting that there are more cars on the list that, when built to 10/10ths, will fall more than 5% off of the default 125%, but they aren't popular enough to garner the attention or the data.

Quoted for truth.