> I didn't pay massive amounts of attention to this discussion when it went
> by the first time, but was the Frankencivic the sole instance, or was it
> simply used consistently as one example of a problem with significant
> scope among other models?
I think Frankencivic was used as the example because it was brought to
public attention and was a very accessible example especially considering
the depth of knowledge about Honda products due to their massive popularity
amongst the sport compact scene. Other Frankenconfigurations may still be
discovered - or not. Those opposed to UD/BD (myself included, although I am
disappointed that a reasonable middle-ground could not be found) saw it as a
way that ST would become a class where national competition would require
*building* a car rather than a class where someone could reasonably modify
the car they happen to have (hey, even an Escort GT of all things) and be
competitive. In a nutshell, there are many cars with competitive potential
with bolt-ons, but few with big UD/BD engine-swapping possibilities.
On the point of economical engine replacements... Let's say the Hupmobile
5000 was produced from 1991-1995 with no changes to the engine (other than
maybe some reliability tweaks that are rolled in) and your 1993 engine blows
up. You go to the dealer to order a new engine and note that the same part
number(s) are spec'd for all years 1991-1995, can you then go to the
junkyard and pluck any 1991-1995 engine and still be SCCA-legal?
--Will Kalman
'91 Escort GT - STS
|