autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fiero upgrade, and autocross?

To: autox mailing list <autox@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Fiero upgrade, and autocross?
From: Mark Andy <mark@sccaprepared.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:11:37 -0400 (EDT)
Howdy,

On Tue, 11 May 2004 Stand0nIt@aol.com wrote:
> No, this horse is not dead... lets see how much more of a beating it can
> take!!
> 
> Mr. Andy Wrote...
> NO. Hell no. U/B in ST was eliminated because lots of competitors in
> the class whined about it after it had been in place for three years,
> and because the STAC recommended the change.
> 
> -- Well... not exactly... I applaud the use of fact backed opinion to
> make the opinion seem as though it is an actual fact.  However the only
> valid part of this particular statement is that the STAC recommended the
> change.

Actually, I didn't write the above.  I was quoting Jay.

> More from Mr Andy...
> UD/BD got removed from ST* because an old civic could weigh 30 lbs
> lighter when built using UD/BD than an old civic could weigh without the
> allowance.
> 
> -- I think it was a bit more broad that this.  Yes, the Civic was the
> first car to gain greatly from UD/BD, but no one tried it with a RX-3,
> RSX, or a later model Civic.  I was more concerned with the prospect of
> one of the fuel economy civics with a VTEC motor than I was with the
> FrankinCivic that were build last year.

Now _that_ I actually did write.  :-)  Yes, as I implied, at the time 
there were some people pointing out how update/backdate could be applied 
to other cars.  But most people were concerned about an '88 civic.

> Mr Andy Continued...
> In the process, lots of normal modifications (final drive changes,
> junkyard motor swaps, using a chassis brace from another iteration of
> the model, etc. etc.) got thrown away with the bathwater.
> 
> -- Even within UD/BD you could not do final drive without doing the
> entire drive train per my limited understanding of such things.  As for
> junkyard motor swaps as long as your engine code is correct you are
> welcome to do that now.  I have one in my car as we speak.  Bolt on
> Chassis bracing such as strut braces and stress bars is allowed with the
> current rule set.

There are examples of cars that had the same drivetrain except for final 
drive (i.e. an earlier year had a taller gear or whatever, with other 
stuff the same).  Bolt on chasis bracing seems to be limited to only "two 
attachment points" type setups, vs. the common X brace from a convertible 
e36 bolted to a 325is (for example, because I'm familier with that one).

As to a junkyard motor swap example that wouldn't work now but would 
before... A '95 DOHC neon motor isn't legal in a '98 chassis due to an 
extremely minor cam change.  Previously it would have been fine.

> > If you like where we ended up... Great!  But let's not have 
> > any illusions 
> > about how we got there.
> -- AGREED :)

Yeah, its a rule now, so whatever.  I still think its stupid, but its 
there and those civics are all 30 lbs heavier so the world must be a 
better place.

:-)

Mark






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