STL engine builds?

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Tom, we have to realize (even though I am not sure where it's printed) that this is a piston-based class. The rotories were allowed in to fill fields and give racers a place to try a National class (even though STU already allowed that). They were weighted intentionally high so as not to become competitive. We have to accept that is the direction of the class and not try and force the rules to 'make sense' - meaning they are in there on a peripheral basis so we have to keep that in mind.

The larger fear is that if you set the weight properly (at the 1.8 weight) for the 13B, it will find it's way into a Miata and dominate. Remember, conceptually, this is a FWD piston-based engine swap class with parameters to allow other platforms with penalties.

 

[Greg Amy]

All the non-rotaries get more horsepower from cams and compression and many of them get weight reductions, while the rotaries get -- absolutely nothing.

You're mistaken, Tom. The 12A and 13B get to "Street Port" (same exact mods as in E Prod), at which point they're fully compliant to run in STU. If you want to weight less and more mods, we very much encourage the 12A and 13B to come play in STU.

Modified rotaries have pretty much zero chance of playing in STL at either a lesser weight or with mods (please read my signature below). If you still think that's laughable, feel free to make a request to the CRB that they strike the rotaries entirely from the STL allowances (you wouldn't be the first.)

GA

 

[TomL]

OK, I'd never seen that stated as a criterion, but if it is why wasn't that stated up front. The assigned weight makes it clear that it was intended that rotaries were not to be competitive (as I was complaining about, obviously). But my question is, "why shouldn't the rotaries be classed on a competitive basis?" Or put another way, if someone puts a 13b into a Miata (classed at the same lb/hp as any piston engine) and wins, what is the problem? Or is this the same problem that there was with putting Mustangs and Camaros in IT - there's no rational basis, it just "doesn't look right"?

 

[TomL]

Greg, obviously the rotaries can play in STU, but with the rules as written, the cost of building a proper STU car is substantial (dare I say ridiculous?), since you get totally redesign the suspension, do major body mods, etc., in addition to developing the engine.

I'd be interested in running STL with an upgraded engine in an IT-level chassis, just like anyone else gets to do. No major expense beyond the engine upgrades, and I can be reasonably competitive. (Yes, I know that engine development is expensive if I want to win Nationals, but I can get 90-95% of the way there for not much money). I could understand keeping rotaries out if they would produce significantly more HP than a 2 liter piston engine, but that isn't the case - a street port 13b shouldn't make much if any more than a good 2.0 liter. If that's the case, I ask again, what reason is there for not assigning the rotaries a weight that is the same as for a piston engine of the same power? Or is in fact there no reason beyond, "it doesn't look right". (or "this is a piston engine class", even if we never said so)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, I'd never seen that stated as a criterion, but if it is why wasn't that stated up front. The assigned weight makes it clear that it was intended that rotaries were not to be competitive (as I was complaining about, obviously). But my question is, "why shouldn't the rotaries be classed on a competitive basis?" Or put another way, if someone puts a 13b into a Miata (classed at the same lb/hp as any piston engine) and wins, what is the problem? Or is this the same problem that there was with putting Mustangs and Camaros in IT - there's no rational basis, it just "doesn't look right"?

Well some of us have been preaching that if this class is to succeed, it needs far more diversity. The IT (internally unmodified) 13B in well-tuned preparation will churn out 180whp. That is WELL within the 1.8L weight and HP targets. Why they won't allow it? No real good answer has been forthcoming and frankly I can't think of one.

Look at STL like this and you'll be a lot happier: It's NASA Honda Challenge by SCCA with some provisions for other cars to compete in a peripheral fashion. Seriously, it's a piston-based swap class conceived for FWD, and compensated for RWD.

 

[Rabbit07]

I am not trying to contradict Greg here, but the way I remember the 13b getting classed was this. A couple of STAC committee members have personally seen 13b RX7s making around 181 whp. Our bogey in STL is 100hp per liter. A 2.0 liter with 200 crank should be around 170-180whp. The 13b was set at the 2.0l weight plus the RWD adder. Anyone that feels this weight is in appropriate please send some data and a letter and we will look at it. I actually think that either an RX7 or Miata with a 13b in STL will be competitive.

 

[TomL]

Thanks Andy. And I'll take your advice and just forget the whole thing.

If I may ask, is this coming from the CRB (or BOD) or from the STAC?

 

[Ron Earp]

Well some of us have been preaching that if this class is to succeed, it needs far more diversity. The IT (internally unmodified) 13B in well-tuned preparation will churn out 180whp. That is WELL within the 1.8L weight and HP targets. Why they won't allow it? No real good answer has been forthcoming and frankly I can't think of one.

I too think it needs diversity. I think there was great opportunity to have a multi-marquee class with higher than IT-prep sans the crazy Prod crap. But various rules such as the displacement cap and no model for various engine architectures, coupled with the age limits and the SCCA's obsession with over/under classes and a seemingly chassis/engine bias mean the class is predominantly a import FWD fest.

Look at STL like this and you'll be a lot happier: It's NASA Honda Challenge by SCCA with some provisions for other cars to compete in a peripheral fashion. Seriously, it's a piston-based swap class conceived for FWD, and compensated for RWD.

Thank you. I now understand.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks Andy. And I'll take your advice and just forget the whole thing.

If I may ask, is this coming from the CRB (or BOD) or from the STAC?

It's coming from me. Just read the threads on this board and others and form your own opinion. I have NOTHING to do with this class if you thought I did.

Chris: 181whp is pretty damn close to your 100hp/L target at the 1.8L weight. Why assign it the 2.0L weight? (forgetting for a second that somewhere it is written this is a piston-based class). Besides, IT-built 1.8L GSR Teg motors are already at that target - BEFORE additional STL prep allowances. The HondAcura powerplant clearly exceeds the target yet the 13B is saddled into no-mans land.

Wait, are the class targets based on WHP or crank HP? Has to be WHP or else the Teg is around 120hp/liter at the crank assuming 185whp on the light side.

 

[Rabbit07]

The numbers are Crank.

On the Honda's remember the cam lift limits. The GSR is close even stock and the K20 is over the Limit. This was intentional.

It is impossible to see every possible combination that could come out of this. What really ticks me off is all the negitive talk about how it's a Honda class, and it's a FWD class. I am seriously looking at building a 99 Miata for STL. I see no reason why this car couldn't run with Greg's GSR. I still think a DOHC Neon can make the power needed to compete. I also like the M42 BMW, but don't want to build an E30 (too old).

 

[R2 Racing]

By my calculations which could be wrong, would put me at ~195 whp which would seem to be pretty difficult within the rules for my specific motor(my choice to use it I know).

2340/195 = 1 HP to 12 LBs

I have seen a lot of non VTEC 1.8 B18 motor dynos and build outs and that seems like a difficult number to hit with a 10/10ths build.

The Integra B18s are reportedly hitting high 130s whp in IT trim, and that's before the cams and compression allowed in ST...they've left almost another point-and-a-half compression, and a good bit of lift and duration, on the table.

I need to try to find these IT B18A/B1 specs to see how they are making the power and go from there. I looked at the Ruck ITA integra end it says 150 hp I just dont want to assume whp.

Why don't you guys just ask? 150whp for an ITA Integra (B18A1/B1) has kinda been "the norm number" for years. "High 130s whp" would be dog meat at their 2600lb weights.

I have no idea what the B18A1/B1 is allowed to do in STL, but my FP B18A1 most certainly doesn't make 195whp. That's a 11.5:1 compression and .450 valve lift build, with a stand-alone ECU, IT port matching and intake manifold rules, pimpy exhaust, cold air intake, .040" overbore, balance, blahblahblah. I have started on a brand new FP B18A1 build for 2012, which I do expect to be better than my current one, but still ain't gonna be 195whp! I'd bet that's possible with the B18C1, but that engine also isn't going to make near the torque of the B18A1/B1. That'll be your tradeoff. I'd expect about a 15-20whp difference between the two, but probably a 15-20wtq swing too, but in the opposite direction.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

I also like the M42 BMW, but don't want to build an E30 (too old).

A well executed e46 should get close to 2340lbs with composite hood and trunk allowances and reduced wire harness. I know for a fact that the M42 swap would not be difficult to perform in a race car, heck the same transmission was used in the 325 version.

 

[lateapex911]

Chris, I'm either hopeful or skeptical, LOL.

To ME, it's a specific power class. if you can make a lot of power for the displacement, you have a good start. Adda decent chassis, and you can compete.

Since cams are limited, (equalized across all manufacturers) and displacement (vis a vis weight) and compression are limited (and equalized, essentially), and exhausts are free, (therefore equalized) it comes down to the head flow and intake.

So, knowing that, what ARE the potential candidates?
My list:
Various Hondas (I can't keep the numbers straight). But the 1.8 in the Teg and the CRX motor seem to be 'breathers' that can hit the targets.
Mazda?? Can a 1.6 make 160? or the 1.8 make 180???
Toyota? Hmmmm, not familiar with any that have any real hope, but maybe I missed one.
BMW. You say an M42. (whats that?)
Nissan?
Dodge: You say a Neon motor? 2.0L? Is that the 150Hp stock one?
Then Subarus new 2.0 170hp flat four maybe?

So the short list in my mind: (with your suggestions: Hondas, Dodge 2.0, BMW M42, Mazda, and Subaru.

For chassis, I guess it's a Miata, Neon, CRX, Integra, Civic, and maybe the new Toyobaru BRZ/FRS?

What else?

Non starters:
Rotaries: here's the conflict I see. The 13B in ITS form runs with the Teg in ITS form, making 180WHP max. But in STL the Teg gets more allowances. So, if the second gen 13B weight is correct in STL, then are you (the STAC saying that you expect STL to be about ITS speed? (and obviously, we could deduce you all think the Tegs classification in ITS is too heavy)
I'm trying to get creative and think of others. Alfas? Hmmm, some interesting choices, but I THINK they are all too old. Porsche? All the 911s are too big displacement. All the others are too old except for the 924, with it's 2.0L but, that will never make the power.

So, what else is there guys?

And:
What do we expect to see at the wheels for:
The CRX engine?
The Teg engine?*
The Miata engine?**
The neon engine?
The BMW M42?

*Edit: Thanks Kevin. Your build (LP Prod) sounds close to STL. And you're saying you make between 150 and 195. But not 150 and certainly not 195. **And for giggles, ISC says an ITA Miata will make "around 135" at teh wheels in ITA trim. So, thats about 165 crank. Is that fair? If so, will it gain 15 in STL build?

 

[Z3_GoCar]

M42's for the e30 318 from '90-'91.
Metric Mechanic claims about 170hp, for their sports 2000 motor:
http://www.metricmechanic.com/pdfs/metric-mechanic-m42-and-m44-engine-booklet.pdf
the 87mm pistons are more than the allowed +1mm, the head's been ported, and I've not checked the max lift spec. So, for the M42 it's a qualified maybe. The newer M44 is out because it's got one of those dual length intake manifolds (same as the 4AGE) that'll never make much more than stock power.

 

[lateapex911]

M42's for the e30 318 from '90-'91.
Metric Mechanic claims about 170hp, for their sports 2000 motor:
http://www.metricmechanic.com/pdfs/metric-mechanic-m42-and-m44-engine-booklet.pdf
the 87mm pistons are more than the allowed +1mm, the head's been ported, and I've not checked the max lift spec. So, for the M42 it's a qualified maybe. The newer M44 is out because it's got one of those dual length intake manifolds (same as the 4AGE) that'll never make much more than stock power.

Hmmm, well, the 170 is for a 2.0L motor. And, there's a LOT in there that won't fly. As you say, the heads ported (6% better flow according to them), they're using non stock rods, pistons, valves, valve springs and more.

So, if thats the best I think it's an uphill battle at 2665lbs.... compared to a CRX at say 600 pounds less,

 

[Greg Amy]

To ME, it's a specific power class.

That's not an opinion, Jake, it's an overt, effectively-written-to-the-regs fact. It's intentional, and you'd have to be blind to not see it.

- The whole category is engine-centric (go read the STO rules, see where it compensates weight for chassis.)
- Weight is based solely on displacement.
- There is no attempt, nor even an implied attempt, to make various engines equally competitive.
- Ergo, the engine with the highest power-to-displacement ("specific horsepower") will have the advantage. Some will win, many will lose.

That is the CORE of Super Touring. No ifs, ands, or butts.

The Honda 1,8L B18B1 (single-cam engine) won't make as much power as the Honda 1,8L B18C1 (dual cam)? Shocked, I am. And there's no allowance for design of head/cams. So which engine you gonna pick? Does the Miata 1,8L makes higher specific horsepower than the Mazda 1,6L? So, which one you gonna pick?

What I'm reading here is a basic "rookie" mistake of trying to shoehorn a desired car/design into a set class. What you guys are doing is thinking "hey, I really like the prep rules of this class! And, I'm a big fan of the Borgward. Hmmm, how can I make this car work in this class? HEY, HOW COME YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE BORGWARDS????" Couple that to some egalitarian ideal that the rulesmakers should work to make all cars competitive, and it's a recipe for frustration.

That ain't Super Touring Light, folks. This ain't Title 9. It's like me saying, "man, I really like the way Spec Miata runs. Wonder if they'd classify my Integra?"

The regs are out there for you to see. There's nothing hidden. As with all forms of motorsport, don't make the rookie mistake of trying to shoehorn your preferred platform into them, read them for what they are, pick the best engine, and stuff it into the car that you think will work best.

Andy's "sarcasm strategy" to see if he can change our mind about what the class is all about, is, ironically, spot-on. If you read what the rules say, and not what you want them to say, you'll see that, in effect, he's pretty much spot-on. There's not even an attempt to hide the fact that this is a small-displacement class that will tend to cater to higher-specific-horsepower engines. And it's no coincidence that most of the available chassis are FWD simply because that's what kind of platforms you'll find these engines over the last 20 years. In that regard, it's a pretty unique class in SCCA. If you prefer bigger displacements and RWD, STU is a great class for that. If you're just a big fan of Big Bore, STO beckons (and could really use the entries.)

Pick the class, pick the engine, pick the chassis. Don't do it in reverse. Easy Peasy.

Oh, by the way, read my signature.

GA

P.S., Jake, the rotary engine is dead. Done, toast. It's so toasted that some Guatemalans are making a trek up here to visit your garage and do the rosary over the various shapes in the dirt on the housings. I can understand your frustration, though; some guys were asking how come we don't classify the steam engine, but we responded with "thank you for your input..."

P.P.S., By the way, that was a joke.

P.P.P.S., Read my signature.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Still don't get the lack of desire to properly class the 13B. It may be 'dead' but no more dead than anything else that is out of production. It's a non-starter. It's a PERFECT fit for the 1.8 weight.

Chris - help me understand the targets. If the math is supposed to be 100hp/L at the crank, I am not sure I am seeing what you are seeing. The Honda 1.8 VTEC's blow that number out of the water...Hit me with some examples of engines that actually hit the target please.

1.8VTEC: 185-190 whp. That's about 220 crank. That's 122hp per liter.
1.6VTEC: 160-165 whp. That's about 190 crank. That's 118hp per liter.

Or are we using stock numbers as a basis? That would be much closer. 160 for the 1.6, 170 for the 1.8....but that totally leaves everything else WAY down.

Help me understand. It's cold, my brain not worky.

 

[Greg Amy]

Still don't get the lack of desire to properly class the 13B.

In my opinion:
- Super Touring is a class that allows some engine modifications.
- The "some engine modifications" for rotaries is SCCA's "Street Port"*
- In "Street Port" configuration, the rotary engine is a Super Touring Under engine.

The rotary engine does not fit within the philosophy of Super Touring Light, regardless of whatever way you twist the numbers. STL is a sub-2-liter, piston engine class.

If you want to run the rotary, do it in STU or EProd.

GA

* SCCA Techical Services has a PDF that you can request that details what is involved in "Street Port". Basically, they limit how big you can port it.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

What I'm reading here is a basic "rookie" mistake of trying to shoehorn a desired car/design into a set class. What you guys are doing is thinking "hey, I really like the prep rules of this class! And, I'm a big fan of the Borgward. Hmmm, how can I make this car work in this class? HEY, HOW COME YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE BORGWARDS????" Couple that to some egalitarian ideal that the rulesmakers should work to make all cars competitive, and it's a recipe for frustration.

That ain't Super Touring Light, folks. This ain't Title 9. It's like me saying, "man, I really like the way Spec Miata runs. Wonder if they'd classify my Integra?"

I think the problem here Greg is that to the outsider, it's NOT a 'set class', meaning that it's a great engine-swap concept. What are the cool combinations? What is possible? How can I be fast and different? It's weight by displacement and anything goes within that displacement (with cam limits for a family). Nobody is asking for a 3.0 in STL, nobody is asking for anything that isn't very reasonable here. The concept that has been told to us, 'piston-based', is well known, but nobody sees any reason to not allow that motor in any other chassis than an RX-7 at an artificially high weight. It makes no sense, especially when it's a new class and it would open up so many more choices.

The regs are out there for you to see. There's nothing hidden. As with all forms of motorsport, don't make the rookie mistake of trying to shoehorn your preferred platform into them, read them for what they are, pick the best engine, and stuff it into the car that you think will work best.

Sort of. The whole FD RX-7 issue is scary. There is no wording and parameters around what chassis' are 'too good' and what are not. Arbitrary at best. Again, more closed doors.

Pick the class, pick the engine, pick the chassis. Don't do it in reverse. Easy Peasy.

Except that simply is not how a smart competitor, OR an enthusiast chooses a racecar. The NASA crowd pics the chassis and motor first, then finds a class. The SCCA racer pics the chassis, then the class, then preps the motor accordingly.

IMHO the order you have it in is a recipe for failure. People build and choose classes around cars, not motors (unless we are talking GT1 or something). Allowing modern engines in popular chassis - regardless of age - is the way to make this class sing.

The concept is so intriguing that it is generating this kind of thought, and it's a good thing. But the comments that are coming in are ones of potential competitors facing walls that nobody can see real reasons for them to be there.

Having been on many committees, I am sure a lot of this grey would be easily explained over a beer or 4 but it's not coming through yet here IMHO.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Here's what I don't get, why ban the Honda F20 in STHonda (whoopse I mean STL)? If everything that's not a Honda is already not compettive; why make it appear that it may possibly have a chance? Just rename it ST Honda and Let Pete Cunningham have it all.