Rule#23 - Thumbs up to the board members

[paultg]

As a member who can not attend the meetings (I am the president of my condo association and we meet the 3rd Thursday of the month, I work north of concord NH, so leaving work early twice a week is a no can do), I'm very excited to see this new rule. I have a 91 miata with a tired 1.6l and am planning to swap a 94-95 1.8l in the future. I was really worried the car would be in a much more performance oriented class with no chance of being competitive.

So thumbs up!! Makes sense to me as the new miatas with 1.8s run in St as well.

Paul G.

[breakaway500]

Why not an LS1? PA looks like a fun class..

[paultg]

How about you do an ls in your 94 and sell me the 1.8l.

[TroyV]

I drove an LS1 Miata in anger once. There is such a thing as too much power. Additionally....the car can not turn nearly as well... Basically it was like having a mini version of my 03 Cobra. Truck loads of power, lurid tail slides when on the throttle, but understeers like a coach bus when off the throttle.

Unless a nice 1.8 falls in my lap.....I'm sticking with my 1.6 for at least another season. I'm having fun seeing how much I can get out of it. I'm probably just going to throw tires at it..

Paul...are you going to come play with us in ST4? It is a fun little group. Get that bar in there!!!!!!

[paultg]

The bar is on the list (skipped snow tires this winter to pad the fun fund a bit).

Paul G.

[TroyV]

I can see how some folks would be against the rule, but for my little world, being able to swap 1.8 in after eventually blowing up my 1.6 without changing classes would be very nice, especially considering it probably wouldn't affect my lap times as much as tires do.

I have no idea what the rule does for cars fitting into the ST1 and STGT classes. However, being that Mustangs are all I know, I would add that I don't see it as realistic for a monster ST1 or STGT Mustang to be put together with this rule change. Sure, SN95 (chassis code) cars have had 2 valve 4.6 V8's in two versions, 4 valve 4.6 V8's in at least 2 versions (not including the blower motors), and one 5.4 V8 in the Cobra R from 2000. A Cobra R specific 5.4 is a very hard engine to come by, and is very expensive for dropping in a car to do TT's with. (Then again, I don't have three Ariel Atoms sitting at my house either, so I guess I could have little concept on what is or isn't practical. LOL)

When my engine pops, I will be putting in a 1.8. If it means I have to run in SPC and get my ass handed to me, so be it.....but I'd rather stay in ST4 where there are cars running the same engine.

[breakaway500]

The 5.4 in the Lincoln Navigator is 32 valve and can be sourced easily. This will go into the SN95 Mustangs with minimal effort and add about 100hp.

Chevy 350s can now go where there were 305's. Ford 351's can be used where the 302 once was.

Will anyone do these swaps? Who knows... I don't really care. I say bring it on!

The faster the better in my book. Damn the rules and classes..

Troy,I do believe you have a phobia about my Atoms.

I have been considering a 347 (I happen to have kicking around...) into the Atom.. I may need bigger tires...

Faster!!

[Don P]

I believe there might be a meaningful difference in performance potential as the 1.6s had a lower rear gear (higher number) than the 1.8s. So a 90 -93 with a 1.8 should easily out accelerate the next gen 1.8s all other things being equal.....

[TroyV]

Yes Mark, but that 5.4 is not a Cobra R specific motor. For the anal looking into it, the numbers will say it belongs to a Navigator. If you're going to swap a motor per the rule, between cars of the same chassis code, then the new motor has to have been betrothed to an SN95 car, not a truck. Based on that, we will likely never see a 96-04 Mustang with a 5.4 engine that can belong in any class lower than SPA......and if there is, homie better be ready to prove that it is a Cobra R specific engine, or risk DQ, or automatic bump to SPA. Who would spend that kind of cash on a motor, to put in a car that isn't worth 15% as much? Aside from you that is.

[paultg]

I believe there might be a meaningful difference in performance potential as the 1.6s had a lower rear gear (higher number) than the 1.8s. So a 90 -93 with a 1.8 should easily out accelerate the next gen 1.8s all other things being equal.....

True, but the ST class rules aleady allow differential update/back dating. The earlier miatas did not have a torsen type differential, which is a disadvantage in my opinion. Plus tire size is open in the class I think, so you can play with overall tire diameter to simulate a gear change before this rule, or swap diffs.

In my opinion the rule is very well written to restrict the options to class and model specific.

[Mark Swinehart]

If you want to compare the performance difference between similar prepared Miata with a 1.6 and 1.8 take a look at the 2006 results/times. Will was running a 1.6 in ST4 and Gordon was running a 1.8 in ST3.

Most of the times are within a second or two of each other and sometimes Will was faster (sorry Gordon).

I think the difference in times is more dependent on the driver and car set-up – not HP.

May feeling is that you want to change engines then run in SP where the current rules allow it.

[DanDarcy]

WTB Cobra R motor. Just think with this motor I can increase my horsepower by 50%. Imagine how many tires I can burn up with 450+ h.p.(car was rated at 385 at the rear wheels) instead of 300 h.p. . I may even get serious about this track stuff and remove about 500 pounds from my car and still be ST class legal (i'll miss my AC and CD player). and Yes Troy I would consider paying the big bucks for the motor, if I bought a Cobra R ($50,000- $80,000-) and hit the wall , I'd be out a lot of money. If I spend the money for the motor and hit the wall , the motor is still good. I even have another Cobra body to put the motor in. The Navigator block is the same as the Cobra R block but the heads , manifolds , rods (Corrillo), aluminum flywheel, etc. are all different but are readily available in the after market.
With this new rule I could also install the 5.0 DOHC motor from the FR500C in a 2005 on up Mustang. (I just happen to own a torch red 2007 GT) That would raise the horsepower from 315h.p. to 400+ h.p. and you can buy this motor as a crate motor from Ford Motorsports. This new rule is cool , we can build some real crazy cars and still be in ST class or maybe we should keep engine swaps in SP and P classes where they have traditionally been.

[paultg]

So, I'm a bit confused as I don't know all the in's /outs of the ST class cars and such; and don't think the intent is to open the flood gates to a bunch of motor swap options to have a competitive edge.

It would seem to me that all these mustang options if they yield a competitive edge (if all these cars currently run in the same ST class); then maybe that is the issue; not this new rule? If you have a 2007 Mustang GT; in order to meet the requirement of the rule; the FR500C car is within the same class as your car? So, you'd be getting smoked anyway if a FR500C car showed up at an event?

Or am I missing something in between the lines?

The rule addition:

New Rule:
****************************************
Updating and back-dating of components are not allowed in Street Touring (ST), unless specified below. The original engine (or direct replacement) that was manufactured with the car must be used

ADD TO LAST SENTENCE ABOVE: except for cars that meet the engine update/backdate criteria as described in X.12.

ADD SECTION X.12:

12. Cars may update or backdate engine assemblies within its make, model, and chassis code provided that both cars (the engine donor and the engine recipient) share the same ST classification (e.g. ST4). The engine assembly must fit exactly like a direct replacement. NO modification to the chassis, subframe, motor mounts, or any other non-ST compliant modification is allowed, except for those listed below.
a. The "engine assembly" includes the engine, intake and exhaust manifolds, and any part attached to the engine which is related to fueling, ignition, throttle, and idle control.
b. Brackets to adapt throttle bodies and ignition coils may be used provided that they serve no other function.
c. Stock motor mounts from either the donor or recipient must be used.
d. Donor or "new" engine must have the same cylinder count and type of induction (naturally aspirated, turbo charged, supercharged) as the original or "old" engine.
e. Excluding the allowances listed in section X.12, all modifications related to the engine update/backdate must fit within the ST rules.

****************************************

[breakaway500]

hehehe...I can just see someone trying to find the block numbers on Dans future 5.4L DOHC motor..and then decoding them to see exactly what they came out of...that's funny!

Troy,there is NEVER enough horsepower. Maybe you just can't handle it...

[WillM]

Thumbs up to the COM members for having their voices heard!

Whether or not you agree with this rule change, please get involved with this discussion. Fair warning before buying an engine: The board of directors have had a long email conversation about this rule change since last weekend. There are several board members who have voiced opposition and I would expect that this rule will be rescinded at the December meeting UNLESS those members in favor share their opinions.

This rule proposal passed by a vote of 5-3 at last week's meeting. There have been at least 3 directors who were not present at that meeting who have indicated, during preliminary discussions, that they would not have voted in favor of the change.

As the author of this rule change, I believe in it. Is the rule proposal perfect? Probably not, but as with any piece of legislation, there are compromises.

A similar rule change has been put forward to the BoD for many, many years. Some were specific to 4-cyl engines, some restricted the increase of displacement to no more that 15%, some were more open that the current rule. All were not passed, and some were not even moved to a vote.

For all of the reasons Paul mentioned, I approve as the rule as it stands. In my opinion, the rule:
1. Promotes competition in ST classes
2. Does not give an unfair advantage to "swapped" cars
3. Allows members with ST-legal "swapped" STOCK engines to run competitively in ST instead of running against uber-modified cars in SP

Since the safety requirements of ST and SP are exactly the same, I have yet to understand a single instance where a "swapped" ST engine (as defined in the new rule) would create a vehicle that is less safe than the "donor" car that is currently legal in the same class.

In my view, one of the responsibilities of the BoD is to listen to the voices of the members who elected them into position. Speak up folks! The fate of this rule is squarely on your shoulders. Like or dislike, there is no wrong answer, except silence!