The SCCA would not accept those turbos as OEM new?
They were not OEM new parts.
As I understand the situation -- and please note, I was not officially involved in this protest in any way, everything I have is second-hand, and public info AFAIK... -- the car in question was a Mazdaspeed Miata M2 turbo engine, installed in an M1 chassis. This engine was a Mazda USA design, where Mazda USA installed turbocharger systems on the cars at the Cali port after arrival from Japan prior to shipped to dealers. This turbo system was sourced from Callaway. Same thing happened from the Mazdaspeed Protege 5 turbo: it was a port-installed turbo system, sourced from Callaway.
Couple years or so ago, the CRB approved for STU the installation of the turbo from the Mazdaspeed Protege 5 onto the Mazdaspeed Miata. The car in question at the Runoffs was using the Protege turbo.
Car in question was protested at the Runoffs for turbo modifications; protester contacted Mazda directly to have them ship an OEM new turbo to Road America. Protester was told by Mazda that the turbo was no longer available new, but that Callaway was the oe manufacturer. Protester contacted Callaway directly and asked for one of those turbos new, as installed onto the Mazdaspeed Protege 5; protester was told that the turbo was NLA new, but they had two
warranty returns from Mazda.
Warranty return parts are used parts that Callaway accepted/requested back from Mazda after Mazda replaced them on street cars under their warranty (Mazda does not keep used/warranty parts, especially if they are not the source for them). These parts were replaced by the dealer, sent back to Mazda, and Mazda sent them back to the supplier, Callaway. These are the
used parts - shipped from Callaway, not Mazda - that were presented to SCCA as comparable inspection items, that were subsequently declined by SCCA as acceptable comparative parts.
My personal opinion: this was the correct move. These were used parts, and there's no way to know what failed on them or why, or what may have been changed in the process of port installation, driving, dealer replacement, sitting on dealer warranty shelf, back to Mazda, and back to Callaway, so forth.
Had they been brandy-new replacement parts from Mazda? Great, they're acceptable. And I compliment the protester's resourcefulness in attempting to find a suitable comparative part. But in this case the whole "chain of custody" thing is lost and there's really no way to know for absolute certainty the validity against which they would be comparing the competitor's installed part.
Capiche?
And in Improved Touring, given we have cars as old as
half a century competing, it *is* a very high standard against which to assure compliance with the regulations. But is the community willing to take a stand and start de-listing cars that are older than a reasonably-accessible age? I suggest not. Alternatively, is the community willing to accept generic-dimension alternate parts allowance for items that are basically un-scrutineer-able (such as allowing XX size valve lifts and YY size throttle bodies and open rods, cranks, etc)? Again, I suggest not.
So, you're in a bit of a pickle with no way out of the barrel.
- GA
