What's the chassis??

Greg Amy said:
Ugh, that one still sticks in my craw. Not that I disagree with our response - I'm generally ok with VW and Porsche being "same family" - but I see that whole thing in hindsight as us falling prey to someone's cruel prank.
Click to expand...

How about relationships that used to be? Ford owned the majority stake in Mazda for many years then sold that off. Ford motor in a Mazda legal? Mazda motor in a Ford legal? Ford owned Volvo. Volvo motor in a Ford okay? VW/Porsche are the "same family now", but what if Porsche suddenly sold off VW? Or Audi? How long does the "in the same family" last after the companies diverge?

Personally I believe the "in the family" rule to be a bunch o shit. Want to run a 2L Mopar in your Honda? Do it up. The class has displacement/weight rules, who cares what company makes the engine?
 
Last edited:
Just to add to the BMW confusion ... James is arguing that a Z3 is an E36, because internally, BMW calls it an E36 (specifically, an E36/7 for the convertible). It *is* an E36 forward of the firewall, with different bodywork. It does have an E30 suspension bolted into the back.

To make matters worse, '99+ Z3s were part E36 (main chassis), part E30 (rear suspension), and part E46 (engine & electronics). The chassis is a variant of the E36 chassis by BMW's own nomenclature. I think his question is valid.

In layman's terms, he wants to use a Z3 chassis with an E36 325i intake manifold (not available in any Z3) with an E36 328i engine (which was also available in the Z3). This engine/intake combo would clearly be allowed in an E36 sedan or coupe unibody, but is unclear if it's allowed in a Z3 unibody.
 
Ron Earp said:
How about relationships that used to be? Ford owned the majority stake in Mazda for many years then sold that off. Ford motor in a Mazda legal? Mazda motor in a Ford legal? Ford owned Volvo. Volvo motor in a Ford okay? VW/Porsche are the "same family now", but what if Porsche suddenly sold off VW? Or Audi? How long does the "in the same family" last after the companies diverge?

Personally I believe the "in the family" rule to be a bunch o shit. Want to run a 2L Mopar in your Honda? Do it up. The class has displacement/weight rules, who cares what company makes the engine?
Click to expand...


NOW RON!

GCR 1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR

  • Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.
If you don't stop straining you are going to give yourself a rupture.
 
JoshS said:
In layman's terms, he wants to use a Z3 chassis with an E36 325i intake manifold (not available in any Z3) with an E36 328i engine (which was also available in the Z3). This engine/intake combo would clearly be allowed in an E36 sedan or coupe unibody, but is unclear if it's allowed in a Z3 unibody.
Click to expand...
I would say "no", for the same reason I cannot run a Del Sol intake (same as the Type R) on my 1.8L Integra engine: that intake was not available on either the Integra's 1.8L engine or in any Integra chassis. Yet if that Integra 1.8L engine was installed in the Del Sol, the superior intake would be compliant...

See? Even Super Touring has "warts and all"...so choose wisely.

GA
 
JoshS said:
Just to add to the BMW confusion ... James is arguing that a Z3 is an E36, because internally, BMW calls it an E36 (specifically, an E36/7 for the convertible). It *is* an E36 forward of the firewall, with different bodywork. It does have an E30 suspension bolted into the back.

To make matters worse, '99+ Z3s were part E36 (main chassis), part E30 (rear suspension), and part E46 (engine & electronics). The chassis is a variant of the E36 chassis by BMW's own nomenclature. I think his question is valid.

In layman's terms, he wants to use a Z3 chassis with an E36 325i intake manifold (not available in any Z3) with an E36 328i engine (which was also available in the Z3). This engine/intake combo would clearly be allowed in an E36 sedan or coupe unibody, but is unclear if it's allowed in a Z3 unibody.
Click to expand...

Bingo, Josh has got what I want to do, use the OBDI manifold which is available on all e36 varients on my e36 based 2.8 liter.

Greg Amy said:
I would say "no", for the same reason I cannot run a Del Sol intake (same as the Type R) on my 1.8L Integra engine: that intake was not available on either the Integra's 1.8L engine or in any Integra chassis. Yet if that Integra 1.8L engine was installed in the Del Sol, the superior intake would be compliant...

See? Even Super Touring has "warts and all"...so choose wisely.

GA
Click to expand...

But, does Honda and Acura call the both the Integra and Del-Sol a VK chassis? All the other e36 variants get to do this, why not the Z3 e36 variant?
 
Z3_GoCar said:
But, does Honda and Acura call the both the Integra and Del-Sol a VK chassis? All the other e36 variants get to do this, why not the Z3 e36 variant?
Click to expand...
Nope, but does SCCA publish the allowed "chassis" as "E36", or do they publish it as "M3" or "325"?

Maybe there's your answer.

GA
 
Z3_GoCar said:
In STO, it's listed as an e36. In STU it's not listed.
Click to expand...
Yes, but almost every other precedent in the ST regs - STL, STU allowances and STO classifications - all reference make/model versus internal chassis codes. That, and/or it specs a particular year of chassis by further spec'ing the internal chassis code (e.g., "E46 M3").

So I suggest we've taken the long route to come around to answering your question of "what's the chassis" as "BMW M3", or "BMW E46 M3", not just "BMW E36".

GA

On edit: just took a gander at existing STU/L/O classifications to verify that. STO lists things such as "BMW E46 M3 & E36" and "BMW E46 M3" and "BMW M3 E92". The only STU allowances are in World Challenge, and appear as "BMW E36 M3 (95-99)" and "BMW E46 3 Series". The implication of these listings is that the internal chassis codes are secondary clarifiers to the make/model being classified, using those codes instead of years; in other words, what's being classified is, for example, the "BMW M3, 1992-1998"(?), shorthanded to "BMW M3, E36." The implication of that usage is that the "chassis" is defined by "BMW M3" and is clarified by "E36", not the other way around. Thus, this allowance/restriction applies only to the BMW M3, not to any chassis code that's an E36 yet is not an M3.

Now, all that said, I suggest if you wish to have the other cars applied to that allowance, the CRB would likely approve it if requested. Or, they may choose to say "whatever, if it's an E36 it applies" and change the line so that it removes the "M3".
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
Still no.
Click to expand...
As Ford / mazda actually use the same motors in many cases, this is BS. WRX turbo engine in a BRZ OK but in an FRS not? why? Genesis turbo eninge in a Forte (ignoring that its cousin is in the optima)? why or why not? if not, then B17/18 acua motors in hondas should be strictly dissallowed. the line is VERY fuzzy at times. obviously mopar in honda is cut and dry within the same manufacturer swap rules, but I think it demonstrates the extreme view nicely.

and to summarize the original problem - so if the NAME OF THE CAR and the chassis code are the same, part swapping is OK (various civic EGs), but if the chassis codes are the same with different model names (328 and Z3 E36s) then it is not?
 
Chip42 said:
As Ford / mazda actually use the same motors in many cases, this is BS.
Click to expand...
No it's not. It's the same situation that was clarified two Fastracks ago in regard to the Panoz, Lotus, and TVR a few Fastracks ago:

"Vehicles delivered with engines from other manufacturers (e.g. Morgan, Panoz, etc) may only use the originally installed engine, or another engine manufactured by the chassis manufacturer (e.g. Lotus Elise may use the Toyota ZZ engine, or any other Lotus manufactured engine that complies with the class rules, however a Lotus Esprit may not install a Toyota ZZ engine)."

If you want to put any engine into any car and put any body on it, you can do that...in GT. Knock yourself out.

GA
 
FRS / BRZ type scenario requires additional clarification. it's not a subaru motor in a toyota chassis, it's the same car with different sheetmetal sold under 2 brands. effectively the same as a Rio/accent or mazda6/fusion. so can I use a WRX engine in the FRS?
 
Chip42 said:
FRS / BRZ type scenario requires additional clarification. it's not a subaru motor in a toyota chassis, it's the same car with different sheetmetal sold under 2 brands. effectively the same as a Rio/accent or mazda6/fusion. so can I use a WRX engine in the FRS?
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn't need to be "clarified", Chip, it's all there in black and white! Read the rulez, newb...

The Subaru version can run its engine or any Subaru engine; the Toyota version can run its engine or any Toyota engine. If you want to run "any" Toyota engine in that car then guess what: start with the freakin' Toyota version! Or convert the damn Subaru into the damn Toyota version using all the right bits and pieces (no VIN rule...)

Now you're just being difficult...intentionally. Not biting. "Still no".

GA
 
Chip42 said:
not being intentionally difficult, I think the rule is wonky at best. tomayto tomahto
Click to expand...
If we're gonna allow alternate engines - and we want to - there's gotta be some kinda limit. This ain't GT. So short of having to approve and list *each and every allowed engine combo* this is the compromise we have to have, as tomato-ey as it is. And no matter how many ingredients we toss in there, there's gonna be some outliers that don't fit the mold. That sucks, but that's the way it is, and at least you know that in advance of going in.

If you've got some ideas for un-wonking the regs I'm all ears... - GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top