In a message dated 9/18/02 5:18:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
dg50@daimlerchrysler.com writes:
<< GSMnow@aol.com wrote: >>
> The complete wording of the SM engine swap rules was specifically
> written to allow the Honda B series engine swaps into Civics.
<< Ah, actually, no it wasn't. We stole the rule directly from ProRally (qv
the Mitsubishi 4G63 powered Tiburons) and then clarified it somewhat when a
bunch of FAQs were getting asked. >>
I should have said, LOOKS like it was written.... Sorry for the assumption
> The wording seems very grey when you talk about other
> swaps.
<< Not at all - you just have to read what is written. >>
I have, several times. It has a bit of double talk to it. Toyota has built
joint venture cars with GM, The current Chevy Prizm is a Toyota Corolla, so
can a Corolla use any GM engine? OR can a Chevy Prizm then use ANY Toyota
Engine? The "GEO" cars make for a real mess as some are (or were) Suzuki,
Toyota, or Isuzu. But in most cases, the body and engine did stay from the
same plant, so I ASSUME by the wording, they would have to stay with the body
makers engines. So a GEO Storm could use any Isuzu engine. But then we have
another mess, The Isuzu Rodeo originally came with a GM 3.1 litre motor. Is
that then considered an Isuzu motor? It could be stuffed into a Geo Storm,
and GM is the parent of Geo. It sure can get fun.
The Pontiac LeMans from a few years back is another real fun one. I think it
was the GSE version that came with the 2.0L motor that was the basis for the
2.0 turbo motor in the Sunbird and GrandAm. That could sure make for a fast
car, weather it could handle at all is another matter. We all know power is
not the only thing to make a winning SM car.
> Does the motor have to come from the same car body?
<< No. >>
> Can an engine that was never used in the car be swapped in?
<< Yes. >>
And this is where some of the grey area comes in. How much can be modded to
swap in a different engine? With some work, I could fit the Lexus V-8 into my
Celica. In fact there are quite a few of them on the road. The V-8 is not
much heavier than my tank of a 4 banger. With relocating the radiator, and a
custom cross member (or oil pan), they have even shoehorned in the Supra twin
turbo motor. I didn't consider this in my car, since that motor moves the
weight further forward, and I am already a bit nose heavy. But the 3.0 (and
3.4) V-6's actually move the weight back a bit since the front of the motor
will sit over 4 inches further back in the car. It would need custom motor
mounts and a highly modified oil pan to clear the cross memebr and steering
rack. But once again, it has been done. There is actually an old Corolla with
the 3.4 running a supercharger. Of course, to fit in the SM rules, the limit
would be the 3.0 with the blower.
> There were two Neons at Nationals running a 2.4 litre block.
<< Actually, there was 1. The Daddio car has a 2.4 litre turbo head, but the
block is a 2.0. >>
And the other one was a 2.0 Neon head on a Stratus 2.4 block. Interesting.
> No one questioned these as not being legal.
<< That's because they are. >>
I figured as much by reading the rule, but it still seemed grey. The
Civic/Integra is an odd setup since they are sisters, but not the same
chassis. So the rule had to be open enough to allow that, so it does let in
some others.
The Hyundia / Mitsubishi swap is an odd one for sure. The Hyundia motors are
copies of Mitsubishies, but were made by Hyundai. I see puting a real
Mitsubishi motor into one of those as really pushing it, even more so than
the Yugo/Fiat question that started all of this.
> But could I drop in a Toyota 3.0L V-6 from a Pickup into my
> old rear drive Celica body?
<< Assuming you can get it to fit, yes. >>
> The newer pickups now have a 3.4L 24 valve V6, but that is
> over the 3.0 limit for overhead cam engines,
<< Only if you intend to supercharge/turbocharge. The NA limit is 6.0 litres
with no restriction on valvetrain type. >>
So even a twin cam multivalve motor can be 6.0L? I didn't read it that way. I
thought it had to be pushrod to be that big. Here come the BMW M5 V-8's stuck
into the little 325's. Toyota has a very sweet 4.7 V-8 that looks like a nice
fit in my Celica. I just have to find some nut who rolled their Tundra.
> 300 hp is not enough in a 2700 pound car
<< Heh. I'm at 2829 dry, and I make ~320 HP. It's all in how you use it... >>
I have clocked 275 hp at my rear tires with no correction for losses. This
was accelerating in 2nd gear, which was around 50 mph through the air too.
This data combined with the fuel consumption and mixture readings seems to
confirm about 300 or so at my crank. Of course this was on 93 octane fuel,
and I had to fill up with 91 out there, and my timing was being pulled back
quite a bit from it. I got some 92 also, but it was only about half the tank.
I didn't even think about the fuel, but next time I will bring at least a few
gallons of 104 octane with me. Driving the car out there made filling the
tank here totally pointless.
Is your 320 at the wheels? Because your second gear roll on acceleration sure
looks faster than mine. My turbo lag is also a bit more than I would like,
but was not a problem on the north course since I was high enough in the revs
to get quick boost in virtually every corner exit, but that was not the case
on the south course. I actually had no trouble with wheelspin in Topeka, so
the lack of AWD didn't seem to be a concern. Maybe with another 100 hp it
might ;-) My suspension changes sure planted the inside rear tire better,
in Peru, I was lighting up the inside tire out of every turn. That was the
BIG change I made right before going to Topeka.
I also know that a big chunk of my poor finishing position was driver
related. I proved it on my very last run up on the north course. I nailed the
first 2/3rds of the course on that final run, and was about 1.4 seconds
faster than my previous best run up yto that point, but I totally washed out
of the last 180 right hand sweeper, having to slow to a crawl to stay within
the cones, and I was still 8/10ths faster than my previous best run. Without
that huge mistake, That could have been a low to mid 49 second run. With the
new setup on the car, it took me all six runs out there to get confident in
driving the car like that. A low 49 on both courses would have been solidly
in the trophies.
And, before you ask, I have GEEZ and a person was timing segments, so I know
I was much better before my wash out.
I think there was even more in my car. The loose nut behind the wheel was the
only thing keeping me from a trophy. Winning the class is another story
though. SM IS a tough class with alot of very good fast cars. Not to mention
excellent drivers. Hopefully I will have more seat time on concrete next
year, and have my setup locked in before I drive out there again. Stuffing
more tire under the car is also in the works.
Changing the setup days before nationals may not be a great idea, but I think
I would have been even further back without the change. I had several
comments from people telling me that my car looked great in the corners.
Something that could not be said at the previous concrete events.
Gary Meissner
#42 SM
1983 Celica in 26th at Nationals.
Every car that finished ahead of me was newer, if that is any consolation ;-)
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|