gran racing
Super Moderator
Agreed, but the Lxi Accord's a nice one to submit.
THE BACK ROOM or ....
- Thread starter pfcs
- Start date
Agreed, but the Lxi Accord's a nice one to submit.
really?
i honestly don't know of if my car is in the queue or not. and really do not care enough to submit for the 4th(?) time.
Dave, is your 2.0 12V motor basically the same engine in the Accord LXi?
i think comparing your 2.0 12V to the CRB/ITAC guys 2.0 12V might be worth doing.
gran racing
Super Moderator
My 2nd gen prelude's engine is 110 hp stock. The Accord Lxi is 120 hp.
If the prelude is run at the defacto 30% IT trim gain, the car would see a slight decrease in weight. If the Accord Lxi is run at 30%, slap on some lead boys. There are several other multivalve ITB & C cars and it's important to get this right now before digging the ditch too deep.
The whole point of having a process is to promote equity, and this default 30% slaps B & C multivalve cars in the face. To be blunt, it's crap and I can't help but wonder what politics are truly behind it. Now that the ITAC Ops Manual is out, no more back room deals or perceptions of that happening.
Which why I thought it would be nice for a list to be provided which cars are in the queue. A year later....oh, you're car wasn't actually in the queue all you needed to do is submit it. I'd hate that to happen to people again.
Tom, here's the request that I submitted:
Eliminate the default 30% gain above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 25% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly.
I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to – 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.
Thank you for taking the time to review and discuss this request.
I have been debating on whether or not to submit the Accord in hopes of pushing the multivalve factor issue harder. I had not yet because a part of me felt it would be kinda a dick move and not totally necessary, but I've been convinced otherwise. Again, it's about parity and cars being treated on a level playing ground.
If the prelude is run at the defacto 30% IT trim gain, the car would see a slight decrease in weight. If the Accord Lxi is run at 30%, slap on some lead boys. There are several other multivalve ITB & C cars and it's important to get this right now before digging the ditch too deep.
The whole point of having a process is to promote equity, and this default 30% slaps B & C multivalve cars in the face. To be blunt, it's crap and I can't help but wonder what politics are truly behind it. Now that the ITAC Ops Manual is out, no more back room deals or perceptions of that happening.
Which why I thought it would be nice for a list to be provided which cars are in the queue. A year later....oh, you're car wasn't actually in the queue all you needed to do is submit it. I'd hate that to happen to people again.
Tom, here's the request that I submitted:
Eliminate the default 30% gain above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 25% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly.
I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to – 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.
Thank you for taking the time to review and discuss this request.
I have been debating on whether or not to submit the Accord in hopes of pushing the multivalve factor issue harder. I had not yet because a part of me felt it would be kinda a dick move and not totally necessary, but I've been convinced otherwise. Again, it's about parity and cars being treated on a level playing ground.
Last edited:
i think comparing the specific output (HP per Liter) in stock form of three honda 12V engines (1.5L in crx si, 2.0 in Prelude Si and the 2.0 in the Accord LXi) is appropriate.
i tried to focus on the numbers and let the politics fall where they may.
there was some discussion somewhere that the early version of the accord was 110 and the later one was 120. not sure what the difference was but for the 16V crx si, they had a better cam in the last two years supposedly because the car was gaining weight. perhaps the accord was gaining weight as well and got a better cam?
JeffYoung
New member
I would submit the request on the Accord. Doubtful it will be processed otherwise, we have a lot of stuff on our plate as is.
Tom, I will try to make sure we get to your car this Monday. It's been sitting too long (in my opinion). Honestly, and this is not your fault, the lengthy letter you did on engine architecture slowed things a bit because it was lengthy and well written and we had to sort through it (because at the time it looked like architecture would matter).
Now, we should just be able to process the car. It's the same motor as the equivalent year ITB Civics right?
Tom, I will try to make sure we get to your car this Monday. It's been sitting too long (in my opinion). Honestly, and this is not your fault, the lengthy letter you did on engine architecture slowed things a bit because it was lengthy and well written and we had to sort through it (because at the time it looked like architecture would matter).
Now, we should just be able to process the car. It's the same motor as the equivalent year ITB Civics right?
based on what I have read of OEM specified hp gain between model years on otherwise identical miata:
If the accord hp gain was due to IT legal adjustments, i.e. ECU tuning or a differeing intake routing ahead of the throttle and mainfold, shouldn't the lower HP number be used for IT calculations?
does anyone know what changed from 87-88 on the A20A3? is it the same as the prelude motor for IT purposes even in 88-89?
agreed that the multivalve rule is BS
If the accord hp gain was due to IT legal adjustments, i.e. ECU tuning or a differeing intake routing ahead of the throttle and mainfold, shouldn't the lower HP number be used for IT calculations?
does anyone know what changed from 87-88 on the A20A3? is it the same as the prelude motor for IT purposes even in 88-89?
agreed that the multivalve rule is BS
gran racing
Super Moderator
The two engines will not result in the same output after an IT build.
Using what factor though? Multivalve 30% which would be BS? Not the default which goes against your OPS manual? I absolutely do not want Tom's car delayed, but it should be fairly classified and not just pushed through at a 30% default simply because the ball had been dropped in the past.
To clarify Tom, I am not a believer that your car should be put through using the 30% multivalve factor.
This is exacly why that multivalve issue needs to be resolved immediately. Please get that resolved or clairified.
Last edited:
Jeff, thanks for the update. yes, the 85-87 crx Si's and the 86-87 civic Si's share the same engine/driveline
i personally think it should be classed at 30% as folks that i trust have told me that 30% is possible. right now it is about 40-42% if you try to figure out what would yield the current weight.
my primary gripe has been why is it so different than the accord 12V?
i would rather take 30% now than another year or two of review. i am too old to keep waiting. i figure i only have about 1500 weekends to live if i am lucky and want to spend some not watching bricks pull me down the back straights.
and i still say that i cannot imagine "B" without those volvos from helll.... i love those guys!
JeffYoung
New member
If it is multivalve in B, then the rule we voted on and passed is 30% unless established otherwise.
That said, there is a lot of data on this motor. I personally doubt that the default -- used when we don't have sufficient information to make a call -- will be outcome determinative.
That said, there is a lot of data on this motor. I personally doubt that the default -- used when we don't have sufficient information to make a call -- will be outcome determinative.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Jeff, there was a vote on the ITAC to make ITB and C cars with multivalve engines achieve a higher horsepower build than the same engines in other classes. I know form beign on the con calls that certain ITAC members insisted upon this awhile ago, and I know that the appearance of protectionism is strong based on factt hat the members cars were ITB cars.
Now it's been turned into policy in the ops manual, and I have to say that's very sisturbing. I don't ever remember hearing a clear or logical reason for the odd call when I was on the ITAC. The CRB insisted it was 'just' because thats what the original document stated. But that's without merit unless they saddle the cars in OTHER classes with the same handicap.
So, since you are the only ITAC member brave and kind enough to post, could you please:
1- explain the rationale of the majority of ITAc members who voted for this? There must be SOME good explanation. My history on the ITAC has me scratching my head as to what a good reason could be though.
2- Since the standard engine uses ONE valve to import intake air, and ONE valve to exhaust, the term multivalve clearly means any number of valves more than 1 on either of the cycles. So, a car with two intakes and one exhaust clearly is a multivalve car. If the ITAC meant 4 valve cars (2 intake, 2 exhaust) specifically, I'm sure that's what they would have written in their operations manual. Correct?
Now it's been turned into policy in the ops manual, and I have to say that's very sisturbing. I don't ever remember hearing a clear or logical reason for the odd call when I was on the ITAC. The CRB insisted it was 'just' because thats what the original document stated. But that's without merit unless they saddle the cars in OTHER classes with the same handicap.
So, since you are the only ITAC member brave and kind enough to post, could you please:
1- explain the rationale of the majority of ITAc members who voted for this? There must be SOME good explanation. My history on the ITAC has me scratching my head as to what a good reason could be though.
2- Since the standard engine uses ONE valve to import intake air, and ONE valve to exhaust, the term multivalve clearly means any number of valves more than 1 on either of the cycles. So, a car with two intakes and one exhaust clearly is a multivalve car. If the ITAC meant 4 valve cars (2 intake, 2 exhaust) specifically, I'm sure that's what they would have written in their operations manual. Correct?
JeffYoung
New member
I am pretty sure (my memory does get fuzzy) that there was a vote on that as we discussed and finalized the Ops Manual and after you left.
I can't speak for the other folks who voted for it. I don't think there was any nefarious motive on their part at all. They were convinced the smaller multivalve motors in B and C would generally make 30%. I think they honestly believed that and advocated for that position because they felt it was for the good of the class.
I personally see no compelling technical reason why this is the case, but I have very little knowledge about the smaller 16 valve motors in B and C.
I can't speak for the other folks who voted for it. I don't think there was any nefarious motive on their part at all. They were convinced the smaller multivalve motors in B and C would generally make 30%. I think they honestly believed that and advocated for that position because they felt it was for the good of the class.
I personally see no compelling technical reason why this is the case, but I have very little knowledge about the smaller 16 valve motors in B and C.
The reason for the horsepower change does not matter. The highest horsepower rating for any given specline is used. If this policy is not used or speclines are split up, than things get complicated. This is why we update/backdate.
Also, don't feel like your Hondas are the only "victims" here. Similar situations exist all over, I can think of a few off the top of my head...
Also, don't feel like your Hondas are the only "victims" here. Similar situations exist all over, I can think of a few off the top of my head...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Actually, the standard policy isn't that cut and dried.
Cars are added to the ITCS and spec'ed based on their power. Then cars are added to the spec line as newer models are eligible. If for example the Burgwart XT has 140hp for the first two model years, it will be classed as such. If later model years are added to the spec line, but have a 143 rating, that rating will be examined. If it is due to a less restrictive exhaust, or ECU tuning, the ITAC will not change anything because those items don't change the core power...both are free in an an IT build.
Now, if the change is due to, say a camshaft, or a larger Air throttle, then the higher rating is used, and the cars should be placed on separate spec lines.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Yes, any vote on it occurred after I left, because I would remember such a thing very clearly.
I find it interesting that anyone would think that a 1600 cc motor will make 30% in ITB, but a 1600cc motor will make 25% in ITA. I would suggest that the ITB motor is going to ITB because either the car can't make ITA weight, OR, the stock power rating is ITB level. In the former case, it's completely unrelated to the engines capacity to exceed stnadard expectations, and in the latter, the external components such as intake and throttle body are as likely to explain the difference in output, and neither can be changed in an IT build.
my hondas are all classed appropriately. My MR2s are not. overall, it's clear that ITB cars are all over the map in terms of power potential, architecture, age, hp rating methods (SAE net/gross/certified?, DIN, etc..), weights, and owner contentment.
there's little to no correlation between these features - some mutlivalves make 30%+ some dont. some 2-valves make 25% or less, some much more.
what's so bat about a per write-in reclass suing known HP as the rule or process where it is not available? isn't that SOP? JJJ might have somethign pithy to add here...
Then those members of the ITAC need to be removed immediately from a position of responsibility within the club as the CRB Operations manual specifically says:
"Don’t vote, or even participate in discussions, on matters relating to you personally."
gran racing
Super Moderator
The Accord Lxi request has been submitted to have the car run through the update process. I just know several people will be sending a curse word or two my way shortly.
Letter # 4245 which corresponds with my multivalve non-sense letter 4229.
Letter # 4245 which corresponds with my multivalve non-sense letter 4229.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I know I would if I had one. Not-for-nothing Dave but do you know what these put out for power? If you knew that they put out roughly 25% over stock would you still have sent that request?
Seems to me that we should be trying to solve the overall 30% in ITB/ITC BS than trying to take shots at certain cars. I don't get it.