stefand1234
New member
can i or can't i Hmmm
Port and Polished the Head ???
- Thread starter stefand1234
- Start date
No.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Bill Miller
New member
Now there's something George and I agree on. Two words, 'rule book'.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Yes, but that's not within the normally accepted definition of "port and polish". If you decide to play the rules nerd with newbiees, and tell someone that P&P is legal (and then mumble "port matching" under your breath) you're setting someone up for an expensive and surprising fall.
To put it bluntly, P&P is NOT allowed. Period. Grab the rule book to find out the rules nerd version of that.
I've made the mistake of commenting on porting and polishing. Made a lack of judgement when I said it was legal. Every IT guy started in with "It's NOT legal!"
I know, slip of tongue and all. Don't confuse Port and Polish with port matching (I've been in a few discussions about port matching lately....)
Jeremy
I know, slip of tongue and all. Don't confuse Port and Polish with port matching (I've been in a few discussions about port matching lately....)
Jeremy
To put it bluntly, P&P is NOT allowed. Period. Grab the rule book to find out the rules nerd version of that.
Grega--Note rule D.1.a.3. which says "No P &P on the intake manifold is permitted except as allowed by rule D.1.l"
D.1.l. allows the port matching, which is "porting and polishing" in the confines of 1 inch of the interface.
That is not a "rules nerd" reading--it is not stretched or obtuse. (although it is not going to give as much power return as in a commonly thought of P & P job).
Grega--Note rule D.1.a.3. which says "No P &P on the intake manifold is permitted except as allowed by rule D.1.l"
D.1.l. allows the port matching, which is "porting and polishing" in the confines of 1 inch of the interface.
That is not a "rules nerd" reading--it is not stretched or obtuse. (although it is not going to give as much power return as in a commonly thought of P & P job).
Banzai240
New member
That is simply NOT true... Port Matching also happens to have the additional anomoly of being restricted by the factory GASKET! You are MATCHING the ports to the factory gasket, which defines the boundries of the port shape.... If you do anything beyond that, you're illegal.
Porting and Polishing is not restricted by the factory gasket, and is WAY beyond "port-matching"...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
racer14itc
New member
Hate to burst your bubble, Darin, but I believe you are wrong here. p.12 of the 2004 ITCS states that cylinder head gaskets may be replaced with any other gasket having the same thickness as stock and then says "other engine gaskets are unrestricted."
Meaning the size and shape of the gasket hole(s) can be anything.
MC
------------------
Mark Coffin
#14 GP BSI Racing/Airborn Coatings/The Shop VW
Scirocco
Zephyr Race Coaching and Consulting
http://pages.prodigy.net/Scirocco14gp
Banzai240
New member
Sorry Mark... You may be able to use any gasket you want, but the factory gasket defines the dimensions of the stock port opening.
I don't know about you guys... but I hear the sounds of a loophole that is slowly closing...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Banzai240
New member
I predict a high availability of said Rotary tools at local second hand stores starting early 2005... As well as a good supply of Production suitible former IT heads...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 04, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 04, 2004).]
racer14itc
New member
Darin,
You show me where in the ITCS it says the intake and exhaust manifold ports have to be the exact same size and shape of the gaskets ports and I'll admit I'm wrong. But I can't find it.
This is an important rules interpretation for the limited prep prod guys, since they are under the same 1" match porting rule.
The rule says they are unrestricted, which means unrestricted in material, size, shape, etc.
Or is this going to turn into another one of those "this is how you SHOULD interpret the rule even though it doesn't say explicit say so" discussions, just like the forged piston debate??
And just for fun, what does the rule book "mean" by 1" from the mating surface? Is it 1" along the port wall, or can I drop a perpendicular 1" from the surface and port to that depth? If the port is angled, that will mean you can go more than 1" along the port wall and still be with the 1" rule limitation. Hmmmm.........
MC
[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited May 04, 2004).]
You show me where in the ITCS it says the intake and exhaust manifold ports have to be the exact same size and shape of the gaskets ports and I'll admit I'm wrong. But I can't find it.
This is an important rules interpretation for the limited prep prod guys, since they are under the same 1" match porting rule.
The rule says they are unrestricted, which means unrestricted in material, size, shape, etc.
Or is this going to turn into another one of those "this is how you SHOULD interpret the rule even though it doesn't say explicit say so" discussions, just like the forged piston debate??
And just for fun, what does the rule book "mean" by 1" from the mating surface? Is it 1" along the port wall, or can I drop a perpendicular 1" from the surface and port to that depth? If the port is angled, that will mean you can go more than 1" along the port wall and still be with the 1" rule limitation. Hmmmm.........
MC
[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited May 04, 2004).]
Banzai240
New member
1. "Port Matching" AND "Porting" are both terms used in the GCR (ITCS and PCS). Clearly, they have two different meanings, otherwise, there would not be two terms, and they would not be used in different contexts. In other words, since the PCS was written first, and since it uses the term "porting", and since we all know what that means, it can't possibly mean the same thing as "port-matching", which was written at a later date and which could have been written as "porting" if that's what they had wanted it to mean.
2. In order to "match" a port, you have to have a port to "match"... Since there is clearly NOTHING in the ITCS that addresses altering the ports size, shape, etc, it must meet the specifications for an OEM port, as per D.1.p. It doesn't say you CAN alter the port, only match it...
You guys can twist the rules up any way you like, but this is the kind of crap that just makes me wonder why we even try to have rules... You guys bitch and moan about tranparancy, and car classifications that don't make sense, and wanting to have a clear understanding of how to build a car, then you turn around a twist the hell out of a simple rule like this and just make a mess of things...
Just read the rule a couple of times, and take it for what it says... quit trying to MAKE it mean something it doesn't.
It doesn't say you can PORT the head 1" in, it says you can port-MATCH 1" in...
Oh, and it's not two hard to figure out what is meant by "mounting surface"... It doesn't say a point on the mounting surface, it says SURFACE.
I'd say the "surface" is pretty much described by the machined portion of the gasket mounting area... Measure in an inch, and MATCH away...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 05, 2004).]
2. In order to "match" a port, you have to have a port to "match"... Since there is clearly NOTHING in the ITCS that addresses altering the ports size, shape, etc, it must meet the specifications for an OEM port, as per D.1.p. It doesn't say you CAN alter the port, only match it...
You guys can twist the rules up any way you like, but this is the kind of crap that just makes me wonder why we even try to have rules... You guys bitch and moan about tranparancy, and car classifications that don't make sense, and wanting to have a clear understanding of how to build a car, then you turn around a twist the hell out of a simple rule like this and just make a mess of things...
Just read the rule a couple of times, and take it for what it says... quit trying to MAKE it mean something it doesn't.
It doesn't say you can PORT the head 1" in, it says you can port-MATCH 1" in...
Oh, and it's not two hard to figure out what is meant by "mounting surface"... It doesn't say a point on the mounting surface, it says SURFACE.
I'd say the "surface" is pretty much described by the machined portion of the gasket mounting area... Measure in an inch, and MATCH away...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 05, 2004).]
Sorry Darin, but I have to disagree with you here. First of all, port matching does indeed address altering the shape of the ports - by definition. As for matching something, you can match it to your header tubes. Or you can match it to your intake tubes. Or both since the ITCS does not specify that either the intake port or the intake tubes must remain as stock. There is nothing that says any dimension must remain as stock. I think you are adding your own words to this rule.
Respectfully Darin, I think it's you who is trying to make it say something it doesn't.
Step back and throw out all that you preconceive here. I see the quandry quite clearly.
There are at least two ways to measure that inch from the mounting surface.
The first is to measure 1" along the surface of the intake port.
The second would be to measure a depth 1" below the mounting surface. To get the idea, take an engineering drawing of the head, or a cut-away head and measure down 1" from the surface. Some ports will already start curving before you get to this 1" depth and could conceivably allow you to port to a measurement along the surface that is significantly longer than 1".
Which is correct? At this time, I haven't a clue and I'd have a hard time accepting one or the other if I were on the COA. I think this is what needs to be clarified. I personally think the intent was to measure along the surface of the port 1" but that is not spelled out in the rules.
But to reiterate, by the current rules I could hog out a port of 3" if I wanted to as long as 1" into the port the port is untouched.
I'm usually with you 100% but I can't be this time my friend.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
BTW, I find the second interpretation to be quite clever and not at all twisted. Kudos.
OTOH, I don't think I'd use the second interpretation because if the CRB decides to clarify this rule to coincide with the first interpretation, this could render an otherwise valuable head as having considerably less value.
The rule is undefined, probably because at the time it was written it was clear to everyone who had input before it became law.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
OTOH, I don't think I'd use the second interpretation because if the CRB decides to clarify this rule to coincide with the first interpretation, this could render an otherwise valuable head as having considerably less value.
The rule is undefined, probably because at the time it was written it was clear to everyone who had input before it became law.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
The "one inch along the wall" or "one inch in space"? question was one I threw out for thought some time back.
As mentioned above, one can play it safe and only go in one inch along the wall.
FWIW, I read it as "one inch in from the manifold to cylinder head mounting faces" not "one inch in from the plane" The center of the port, or any part away from the mounting face is not what the rule says.
Further, one might argue intent. Such as if they wanted you to be able to port they would say port. They don't it says portmatch. Well port-match what? You don't have to use the OEM gasket. So was the intent to enlarge the smaller port to match the larger port and give you one inch in which to blend the transition? Well, then why does it even need to address the carb mounting location? Or the intersection of 2 piece manifolds? They didn't have to do that because of the old IIDSYCYC.
Man these rules can be frustrating with their inconsistant approach!
[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited May 05, 2004).]
As mentioned above, one can play it safe and only go in one inch along the wall.
FWIW, I read it as "one inch in from the manifold to cylinder head mounting faces" not "one inch in from the plane" The center of the port, or any part away from the mounting face is not what the rule says.
Further, one might argue intent. Such as if they wanted you to be able to port they would say port. They don't it says portmatch. Well port-match what? You don't have to use the OEM gasket. So was the intent to enlarge the smaller port to match the larger port and give you one inch in which to blend the transition? Well, then why does it even need to address the carb mounting location? Or the intersection of 2 piece manifolds? They didn't have to do that because of the old IIDSYCYC.
Man these rules can be frustrating with their inconsistant approach!
[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited May 05, 2004).]
Banzai240
New member
It's not the inconsistant approach... it's the BS way that those building the cars twist them up to mean what they want them to mean...
F'it... I'm out of this conversation... If you guys want GT or Production, then why don't you just quite pissing in the wind and go build a Prod or GT car... I don't give a RIP what gasket you run... You can be like Jaguars and not run a gasket at all for all I care... It's irrelevant... The rule allows you to MATCH the ports, which means you pick one and match the other, or vise versa... The gasket is irrelevant, so I'll take that part out of my reasoning on this... You are required to run the stock intake and the stock head, and you can match the ports between... That's the rule, that's how it's written... that's it's intent...
You guys want to know why the rules making process takes so long??? You want to know why there is so much lawyer-ese in such simple topics as allowing weight adjustments to IT cars (PCAs)???? It's because of crap like this...
Keep it up guys... you'll destroy this class all on your own without any help from any action the ACs or CRB might do... No wonder these things are gettings so damn expensive to build...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX