autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not?

To: "'Randy Chase'" <randyc2@home.com>,
Subject: RE: Surge tanks and motor mounts, why not?
From: Doug Chase <dougcha@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:18:34 -0800
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Chase [SMTP:randyc2@home.com]
> 
> Well... I would think anything that eliminates "losing performance" to
> therefore becomes something that "enhances performance". There are many
> examples of this. My inside rear wheel spin is only a problem when
> autocrossing, and I would like to be able to add the LSD to my car. 
 
Mark Sirota made the exact same point but I'm replying to this message
because it also has motor mount stuff in it.

Good point about the inside rear wheel spin and LSD.  But something causing
a car to not run correctly is different than a car that displays less than
ideal handling or power delivery.  In my mind (and maybe only in MY mind),
having the car run properly all the time should be a given, not something
you should have to work around.

Both posts implied that these competitors can simply run more gas in the
tank and that would fix the problem.  Perhaps I'm not clear on the exact
problem.  Is the problem that these people want to run on fumes and they
can't do it, or is the problem that even when they have gas in the tank,
fuel slosh in the carbs or fuel rail is causing problems?  I was assuming
the latter.  Perhaps I was wrong.  But given the rest of the mods allowed in
SP, I don't see a reason for this being illegal.

> I does make sense that there is a consideration for a slippery slope. This
> mod would only be required by X number of cars (and most of them would do
> it), and then we also the fix for every car's achilles heel, and pretty
> soon the rule book is HUGE and complex.
 
Remember that we're talking about SP here, not stock, so a lot of achilles
heels can be fixed already (chain tensioners come to mind).  But I'm also of
the opinion that we should allow cars to fix their achilles heels.  I know
I'm in the minority here.

> Yup. But I would also accept that driving the car you love means you
> replace synchros, or mounts, or whatever, or even live with running with a
> half full tank of gas. 
 
True, but as I said above, I'm of the opinion that we should make
accomodations to minor problems that are annoying and costly to maintain,
but are of little or no performance advantage to fix correctly.

> AGAIN...I am just supplying what I see is the rationale. I don't have a
> strong opinion about the merits of this particular decision. 
 
Agreed.  But a good reasonable debate is always fun.

> Hey, admit you really want an MR2..then I will welcome you to the family.
> 8)
 
I've driven a couple (Karen Babb's included) and I'd have to say that
Karen's car was the best handling car I have ever autocrossed.  Noticeably
better than mine.  But I just love that V6 rumble and good ol' American
torque.  And it's kinda fun being the underdog.

> Randy "could be related to Doug since I (and my dad) lived in Seattle for
> a while" 8) Chase
 
But I grew up in Omaha.  :-)

Doug Chase
Everett, WA
'88 Fiero Formula 5-spd (autocrosser)
'88 Fiero GT 5-spd (bent, needs ride to Huntsville, AL)
'85 Fiero GT 4-spd (future Pro Rally car)
'89 Sunbird GT Turbo Convertible




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