STL engine builds?

Rabbit07 said:
I can tell you with a great amount of confidence that the expected Target is 100 HP per liter "crank" for STL and 120 for STU. And for those that care STO is the wild west ;-)
Click to expand...

So a B16A2 engine is 1.6L and makes 160 CHP. Doing anything to the engine - cams, compression, ecu/software, etc puts it over the 'target'.

Comparatively, an SVT Focus is 2.0L and makes 170 CHP - with 4-2-1 headers and 10.2:1 compression stock.

A BMW M42 (from an E36 318ti) is 1.8L and makes 138CHP an has 10:1 compression.

A toyota 3S-GE froma Celica GTS at 2.0L in stock form made 135hp at 9.2:1 compression. Bumping it up to 11:1 and playing with cams, possibly 200CHP....might be a good intall into a 2nd Gen MR-2 or MR-S.

But I suspect the Honda is going to be the benchmark to meet/beat, especially the 1.6L engine at 520# lighter - that's a lot less weight to carry around corners like Mid-O and up hills like the Glen and the front straight at RdAm.

Maybe even put that 1.6L CivicSi motor into a low drag chassis like an Insight. There's tons of things people can come up with.
 
Last edited:
I can't stress enought that the target is a starting point. We looked at this as objectively as we could and said it should be about "x".

It's a target, but it's a moving one. Again, we need cars built and racing each other before this really washes out.
 
JS154 said:
So a B16A2 engine is 1.6L and makes 160 CHP. Doing anything to the engine - cams, compression, ecu/software, etc puts it over the 'target'.

Comparatively, an SVT Focus is 2.0L and makes 170 CHP - with 4-2-1 headers and 10.2:1 compression stock.

A BMW M42 (from an E36 318ti) is 1.8L and makes 138CHP an has 10:1 compression.

A toyota 3S-GE froma Celica GTS at 2.0L in stock form made 135hp at 9.2:1 compression. Bumping it up to 11:1 and playing with cams, possibly 200CHP....might be a good intall into a 2nd Gen MR-2 or MR-S.

But I suspect the Honda is going to be the benchmark to meet/beat, especially the 1.6L engine at 520# lighter - that's a lot less weight to carry around corners like Mid-O and up hills like the Glen and the front straight at RdAm.

Maybe even put that 1.6L CivicSi motor into a low drag chassis like an Insight. There's tons of things people can come up with.
Click to expand...
I think the rules would allow a 3S-GTE converted to natural aspiration. I think that could make an SW20 a contender.
 
Still an open question per Greg (which is fine, just want to hear what the STAC thinks aobut that issue at some point).
 
Robbie said:
I think the rules would allow a 3S-GTE converted to natural aspiration. I think that could make an SW20 a contender.
Click to expand...

just run the Celica's 3SGE. If they allowed the removal of the turbo you'd want an alt intake. the 2 motors are basically the same, there are some revisions like oil squirters but those could be added. not to beat a dead horse but the 3rd gen 3S from the JDM MR2 really would be the easy button, it has a revised intake and oil pump / circuit (same block) over that in the US 3SGE, everything else is 100% ST legal changes as far as I can tell.
 
A few observations from the sidelines...

** It IS massively silly that with solid first principles in place (cam lift, weight/displacement math), there are additional engine source restrictions in place. It doesn't pass the stoopid test.

** HOWEVER, those restrictions *should* make it unnecessary to go hurtling down the individual make/model (or livery!) competition adjustments (bleah!).

** This should ABSOLUTELY be true when 100% of the people playing the game are doing "catalog horsepower" - theoretical estimates arrived at by stacking up improvements on top of quoted stock HP figures

It is what it is. It isn't perfect. But PLEASE don't take what is good about this category and F it all up with reactive adjustments based on on-track performance of a tiny sample of car/driver combinations - or worse yet, proactive adjustments based on ANTICIPATED on-track performance.

Dang, people.

K
 
Knestis said:
A few observations from the sidelines...

** It IS massively silly that with solid first principles in place (cam lift, weight/displacement math), there are additional engine source restrictions in place. It doesn't pass the stoopid test.

** HOWEVER, those restrictions *should* make it unnecessary to go hurtling down the individual make/model (or livery!) competition adjustments (bleah!).

** This should ABSOLUTELY be true when 100% of the people playing the game are doing "catalog horsepower" - theoretical estimates arrived at by stacking up improvements on top of quoted stock HP figures

It is what it is. It isn't perfect. But PLEASE don't take what is good about this category and F it all up with reactive adjustments based on on-track performance of a tiny sample of car/driver combinations - or worse yet, proactive adjustments based on ANTICIPATED on-track performance.

Dang, people.

K
Click to expand...
Your truthiness is quote-worthy. - GA
 
Greg Amy said:
I think our target (I'll have to check) for whp/wt is right around 12, so if you're around there you're in the ballpark (and don't hold me to that number as a hard fact). Generally speaking, the larger-displacement cars will not be able to take advantage of the cam lift and compression ratio rules as much as the smaller ones can, so that should help a lot. - GA
Click to expand...

Greg, I'm just trying to get an accurate take on this.

Above, earlier in the discussion you listed an "estimate" of Whp which is different obviously than Crank.

Rabbit07 is adamant this "estimate" is crank?

I'm just trying to see which is correct.
 
Knestis said:
A few observations from the sidelines...

** It IS massively silly that with solid first principles in place (cam lift, weight/displacement math), there are additional engine source restrictions in place. It doesn't pass the stoopid test.

** HOWEVER, those restrictions *should* make it unnecessary to go hurtling down the individual make/model (or livery!) competition adjustments (bleah!).

** This should ABSOLUTELY be true when 100% of the people playing the game are doing "catalog horsepower" - theoretical estimates arrived at by stacking up improvements on top of quoted stock HP figures

It is what it is. It isn't perfect. But PLEASE don't take what is good about this category and F it all up with reactive adjustments based on on-track performance of a tiny sample of car/driver combinations - or worse yet, proactive adjustments based on ANTICIPATED on-track performance.

Dang, people.

K
Click to expand...

This is the expectation. We have the power to adjust, that does not mean that this is the prudent thing to do.

Bring your cars, lets race, then you can bitch a scream about how un fair it is. Before that it's just talk.

I know Greg and I are going to race in this class. If I run a Mazda and He runs and Acura, what will you say when they play nice?
 
Forget all the discussion about targets, ratios, horsepower, crank, wheel, whatever. It's all a fantasy.

There are zero (none, nothing, nada) documented hard or soft limits/targets for any of that. Here's what's documented, right at the beginning of the Super Touring Category Specifiations:

Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore “tuner” class with engine
displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level
of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO.

And later in the regulations:

Alternate engines may be used, if the manufacturer of the vehicle
and engine are the same (e.g., an Acura engine installed into a
Honda car) and was available in a car delivered in North America.

And, later in the STL regs:

The engines from the following cars are ineligible for STL:
Honda S2000, Acura Type R

Turbocharged engines are not permitted in STL.

...from which one can quickly infer that the 190hp (of the ITR) and more is not "acceptable", and stuff smaller than that is "acceptable."

That's it. Nothing more. That's all there is, laid out in black and white (well, red and white in the 2011 version). There's nothing in the CRB's or the STAC's "special super secret backdoor deals rulesbook"* about any kind of ratio guidelines. Anything else is either a fantasy or someone else's internal guidelines on what they think should be in the class. Or, maybe they're just inferring from existing information, just like you are.

You guys are getting your panties all in a twaddle about the existence of some secret backdoor deals going down; I can understand that, given my long-term history of this org. However, everything you need to know about this class is right there, downloadable in all it's glory in PDF format.

Read it, then you can choose to participate or not.

Your call.

GA


* That's a joke. There really isn't a "special super secret backdoor deals rulesbook. It's actually a "double super-secret backdoor deals rulesbook". It could be in there, I suppose, but I haven't seen that one since I'm not part of The Inner Circle...yet...bwuhuhuhuhuh...
 
Greg Amy said:
Forget all the discussion about targets, ratios, horsepower, crank, wheel, whatever. It's all a fantasy.

There are zero (none, nothing, nada) documented hard or soft limits/targets for any of that. Here's what's documented, right at the beginning of the Super Touring Category Specifiations:

Super Touring Light (STL) is a small-bore “tuner” class with engine
displacements of 2.0 liters and under. STL encompasses a lower level
of allowed modifications compared to STU and STO.

And later in the regulations:

Alternate engines may be used, if the manufacturer of the vehicle
and engine are the same (e.g., an Acura engine installed into a
Honda car) and was available in a car delivered in North America.

And, later in the STL regs:

The engines from the following cars are ineligible for STL:
Honda S2000, Acura Type R

Turbocharged engines are not permitted in STL.

...from which one can quickly infer that the 190hp (of the ITR) and more is not "acceptable", and stuff smaller than that is "acceptable."

That's it. Nothing more. That's all there is, laid out in black and white (well, red and white in the 2011 version). There's nothing in the CRB's or the STAC's "special super secret backdoor deals rulesbook"* about any kind of ratio guidelines. Anything else is either a fantasy or someone else's internal guidelines on what they think should be in the class. Or, maybe they're just inferring from existing information, just like you are.

You guys are getting your panties all in a twaddle about the existence of some secret backdoor deals going down; I can understand that, given my long-term history of this org. However, everything you need to know about this class is right there, downloadable in all it's glory in PDF format.

Read it, then you can choose to participate or not.

Your call.

GA
Click to expand...

It's quote-worthy, except for the last part.
 
Describe STL: ITA weights, ITS power, and ITR speeds.

Principle is cool.

Chris, just because Greg thinks the Miata will compete doesn't mean jack-squat. Any theory is predicated on expected hp levels. The target HP Tyler is hoping for is WAY beyond anything that the interweb has produced and I wish him luck. The Honda's are much better known. In order to be in the ballpark, the Miata is going to have to find (goal being 180whp) EIGHTY crank hp from stock with the cam and compression bumps.

Like I said before, even if the 1.8BP motor from Mazda can make decent gains and in a good chassis it can compete, it's only a two horse race.

Edit: AND - if you and Greg run around and play nice together on-track, I won't so much care, I would need to see the numbers. Right now, Greg is still in development and is running ITS times so it's really impossible to see any data until we compare the stat sheets.

Edit-Edit: I believe enough in the LAP SIM stuff to suggest that at these power levels, there should be a 5% difference in FWD-RWD given the same front suspension design.

Math example:

GSR 1.8 into a HondAcura with double wishbone fronts: 185whp. THAT is the target everyone is looking at when deciding to build. In order to hit that number, what will a RWD 1.8-based car have to make for power to be on par? How about the 1.6's? Let's do some math.
 
Last edited:
Mickey wondering if STL is some deep seeded urge and "secret" way to get other manufacturers other than Honda and *maybe* Miata to produce small displacement, higher hp, freer breathering engines in the US. hmmm...

Also, remember that rods, vales, valve springs, flywheel/clutch are free too.
 
Riddle this to me regarding the BP Miata;

A SM can make 131 WHP through 41mm restrictor.

I know of ITS Miatas that have made north of 160 WHP with stock cams and .5 increase in compression ratio.

How can a major increase in cam shaft, compression, lighter flywheel, lighter rotating assembly, stand alone engine management, not make atleast 180 WHP?
 
Chris - you are contributing to the theoretical noise. We don't know as much as we think we know, starting with the power and legality of those ITS Miatae. If you play the game, everyone else will be allowed to play the game, and you suggested above that we should go racing and complain later.

K
 
Knestis said:
Chris - you are contributing to the theoretical noise. We don't know as much as we think we know, starting with the power and legality of those ITS Miatae. If you play the game, everyone else will be allowed to play the game, and you suggested above that we should go racing and complain later.

K
Click to expand...

Damn you for making sense!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top