autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A Different D/E Mod Approach

To: quad4fiero@webzone.net
Subject: Re: A Different D/E Mod Approach
From: Gemery@aol.com
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 20:43:24 EST
George Ryan - 

I understand you have a 2.3 liter quad4 in a legal AP Fiero, despite 
4-cyl Fieros coming with 2.5 liters, due to it being legal in 
roadracing's GT class, correct?  You complained that a Fiero in AP
couldn't possibly compete with Loti based on power-to-weight
ratios, correct?

Both Karen Babb and myself supplied numbers which showed
that wasn't likely to be true and that your own calculations were
in error.  You then made the supposition that an Elan's torque 
curve must be more conducive to autox than a quad4, correct?
[BTY - I thought this was a weird statement for someone running 
in Prepared, a class where gearing and camshafts, the very
items which determine torque band, can be changed at whim]

You also then made the statement that you would prefer to play
in Mod (repeated below) if there was a heavier Mod class, correct?

My response (read _thoughtfully_ now!) was "Regardless of 
the weight, in a class that allows unlimited engine swaps, why 
would you ever expect a normally aspirated 2.3 motor to be 
competitive?"

In other words: suppose the weight of EM was 2000 lbs, a weight
you've already met, why would you expect your 2.3 liter motor to be
competitive against the allowed V-8s or rotaries or turbos which 
are still putting out the same 300+ HP vs. your 225 HP?  Or are
you planning on setting the limit at 2.3 liters and no turbos and
no rotaries?

The picture I still see is you won't be competitive in the "proposed" 
class, you're unwilling to prepare your car to the best potential in 
AP (e.g. ditch the quad4 and put in a 2.5 liter as most people 
would or at least change your gearing), and you feel those damn 
Loti are to blame.  _That_ smells like I-stock.

I've said before, in this very forum, that I would like a national street 
mod class.  Provided sensible rules can be written.  And though I &
others have tried, I've not seen a good set yet (Doug Miller was
close last year).  I'll support adding some weight to DM/EM, but
not 500 lbs as there are plenty of available cars which will meet 
lower weights.  And I can't support an argument based on "I'm
unwilling to change my existing car", which is what I read in
your repeated statements.

George "way too long-winded today" Emery
gemery@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/gemery/scorpion.html

George Ryan wrote:
> George Emery writes:
>  
>  > Once again, you're not making sense.  Regardless of the weight, 
>  > in a class that allows unlimited engine swaps, why would you 
>  > ever expect a normally aspirated 2.3 motor to be competitive?  
>  > Isn't that why people use V8s and rotaries and turbos in EM?
>  
>  in response to my:
>  
>  > The whole point to my statement is that I would prefer the to play
>  > in the Mod catagory. But even if I tubed the car, got the weight to
>  > 1500lbs, I doubt the car could ever be Nationally competitive with
>  > a 2.3 motor. My point is, was, and always has been, that I would 
>  > love to see the heavier Mod class that was previously proposed.
>  
>  Read my lips. I already have a built 2.3, and really do not prefer to
>  throw another 10 grand at the car to completely tube it, and install 
>  a V8. 
>  
>  This isn't an "I" class I propose, as my car is perfectly legal in AP.
>  Although the car will not ever become a champion in that class,  
>  my driving skills (?) are a far cry from that caliber anyway (the same 
>  could be said of a new Mod class). At least under that proposal, my 
>  car and a host of other also-rans which do not really have a class
>  where they fit in - the kit cars, the Corvairs, et al - could have a 
>  place where they could run on a little more level playing field.
>  
>  If that still makes no sense to you, maybe I could get someone with
>  artistic skills (again, that leaves me out) to draw a picture? Instead 
>  of picking out one or two sentences in a message to be critical of, 
>  try reading the entire message for content and meaning. 
>  
>  G

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>