I want help on a new NASA Rally Sport class: Spec WRX

I think this is a great idea Anders. No restrictor makes a car that hardly anybody wants anymore, all that attractive again. And the spec map sounds like a perfect solution. Yes there's room for cheating, but even in the most restricted forms of motorsports, there's always someone trying to find a way to cheat. Look at NASCAR, they're like nazis with the rules meanwhile, there's a couple of crew chiefs being suspected on cheating at any given time!

Morison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you did re-map could you keep the 'restricted'
> low/mid range grunt but fix the top end to get the
> power there too? In otherwords, without a
> restrictor can you still tune in the torque
> increases you see with restricted engines AND get
> the higher RPM power too?
>
>


The engine tells the tuner through feed back on the dyno what the engine can do. The "tuner" doesn't really make the engine do anything, rather the tuner watches the data/figures and try to optimize the power output based on the data, torque, HP, air/fuel ratio.

On a turbo car the waste gate actuation can be played with in lower gears and/or RPM's to bleed excess boost and somewhat control power outputs to maximize grip or keep from backing off of throttle.

Engines that have different MAPS are simply different levels optimized for different reasons, such as fuel economy, rate of power/boost build, or pushing reliability levels ...

There are things that can be done to easy drivability somewhat but one can only do what the engine will allow (therefore capable of) before protesting to much ...

---

As always IMHO

SEAN TENNIS KF7JJR
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
SAAB 99, SAAB 850
SAAB V4, SAAB 99T

Do It Sidewayz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe...
>
> i think it depends on the set-up.
>
> Generally we size our turbos with restrictors in
> mind, so are generally a little bit small, as we
> don't make top-end anyways.
>
> you are still going to get a nice midrange since
> optimized restricted motors are probably running
> piles of compression and boost in the mid range.
>
>
>
> But yeah it'll keep pulling, and get some more HP
> up top....look at a dyno sheet and look how the HP
> curve is generating, and take a guess..
>
> Chris

More importantly, as an engine builder not tuner, is basic static compression ratio. When 34mm rule came into effect, motors got much higher static compression ratios of 9 to 9.15:1, loonier cams, and funny compressor ratios vs the "old school" 7.6 to 7.8:1 and less loonie cams if fact downright mild cams.

34mm motors are bottom good, mid-range BEASTs, zero top end; old school was more flexible at the ultimate spec but they'd pull and rev is the main thing.
What the motor didn't make for ft/lbs the final drive made up with leverage---4.6:1 and even 4.88 vs "new school" 4,4 or 4,1.

All the false arguments of "if you optimsied a unrestricted motor..." that's not what is proposed. Its extensively and substantially changed restricted motor on any fuel vs a stock motor on pump 92-93 octane and unrestricted.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More importantly, as an engine builder not tuner,
> is basic static compression ratio. When 34mm rule
> came into effect, motors got much higher static
> compression ratios of 9 to 9.15:1, loonier cams,
> and funny compressor ratios vs the "old school"
> 7.6 to 7.8:1 and less loonie cams if fact
> downright mild cams.

> John Vanlandingham
> Sleezattle, WA, USA
>
> Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
>
> www.jvab.f4.ca
One of my co-workers worked for Prodrive for 6 years on the Rally side and then 2 in the Sportscar side. He says the WRC motors were running 11.8 static and then rammed with 3+ bar of boost.

Anymore wild than that you would need to change the spark plugs to glow plugs. I mean they already sounds about as deep and rev as much as a diesel anyways!

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do It Sidewayz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe...
> >
> > i think it depends on the set-up.
> >
> > Generally we size our turbos with restrictors
> in
> > mind, so are generally a little bit small, as
> we
> > don't make top-end anyways.
> >
> > you are still going to get a nice midrange
> since
> > optimized restricted motors are probably
> running
> > piles of compression and boost in the mid
> range.
> >
> >
> >
> > But yeah it'll keep pulling, and get some
> more HP
> > up top....look at a dyno sheet and look how
> the HP
> > curve is generating, and take a guess..
> >
> > Chris
>
> More importantly, as an engine builder not tuner,
> is basic static compression ratio. When 34mm rule
> came into effect, motors got much higher static
> compression ratios of 9 to 9.15:1, loonier cams,
> and funny compressor ratios vs the "old school"
> 7.6 to 7.8:1 and less loonie cams if fact
> downright mild cams.
>
> 34mm motors are bottom good, mid-range BEASTs,
> zero top end; old school was more flexible at the
> ultimate spec but they'd pull and rev is the main
> thing.
> What the motor didn't make for ft/lbs the final
> drive made up with leverage---4.6:1 and even 4.88
> vs "new school" 4,4 or 4,1.
>
> All the false arguments of "if you optimsied a
> unrestricted motor..." that's not what is
> proposed. Its extensively and substantially
> changed restricted motor on any fuel vs a stock
> motor on pump 92-93 octane and unrestricted.
>
>
>
>
> John Vanlandingham
> Sleezattle, WA, USA
>
> Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
>
> www.jvab.f4.ca

There are no false arguments John. We clearly understand the proposal as stated. All the concerns are true and valid. So far no one in the international community has found a good way to police the proposal or make it work reliably. No misunderstandings, no lies, no half truths and little or no chance that anyone here is going to figure out a better system either.

Cosworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> john vanlandingham Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More importantly, as an engine builder not
> tuner,
> > is basic static compression ratio. When 34mm
> rule
> > came into effect, motors got much higher
> static
> > compression ratios of 9 to 9.15:1, loonier
> cams,
> > and funny compressor ratios vs the "old
> school"
> > 7.6 to 7.8:1 and less loonie cams if fact
> > downright mild cams.
>
> > John Vanlandingham
> > Sleezattle, WA, USA
> >
> > Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
> >
> > www.jvab.f4.ca
> One of my co-workers worked for Prodrive for 6
> years on the Rally side and then 2 in the
> Sportscar side. He says the WRC motors were
> running 11.8 static and then rammed with 3+ bar of
> boost.
>
> Anymore wild than that you would need to change
> the spark plugs to glow plugs. I mean they already
> sounds about as deep and rev as much as a diesel
> anyways!


Even at the sharp end of the stick here; when I was talking with Iorio about his motor he said it was 10.5:1 compression with "ONLY 35 psi of boost" He was using H20 injection obviously.

---

Gone fishing

david amor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cosworth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > john vanlandingham Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > More importantly, as an engine builder
> not
> > tuner,
> > > is basic static compression ratio. When
> 34mm
> > rule
> > > came into effect, motors got much
> higher
> > static
> > > compression ratios of 9 to 9.15:1,
> loonier
> > cams,
> > > and funny compressor ratios vs the "old
> > school"
> > > 7.6 to 7.8:1 and less loonie cams if
> fact
> > > downright mild cams.
> >
> > > John Vanlandingham
> > > Sleezattle, WA, USA
> > >
> > > Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
> > >
> > > www.jvab.f4.ca
> > One of my co-workers worked for Prodrive for
> 6
> > years on the Rally side and then 2 in the
> > Sportscar side. He says the WRC motors were
> > running 11.8 static and then rammed with 3+
> bar of
> > boost.
> >
> > Anymore wild than that you would need to
> change
> > the spark plugs to glow plugs. I mean they
> already
> > sounds about as deep and rev as much as a
> diesel
> > anyways!
>
>
> Even at the sharp end of the stick here; when I
> was talking with Iorio about his motor he said it
> was 10.5:1 compression with "ONLY 35 psi of boost"
> He was using H20 injection obviously.
>
> "this is certainly not a game for flyweights or
> ping-pong players-all arguments to the contrary"
> -C.B.


Holy crap ! I believe several Mitsus melted last year at 30 psi.

I don't think water injection is as common as it should be on the higher output cars. Most ecu's have outputs to map it and it's pretty simple and keeps cylinder temps in check. I have a nice system in the shop that I'd like to see go on my ex car.

---

Gone fishing

Are there any turbo diesel conversions out there? That would be cool.

BTW...greetings from Seed 9!

---

Jon Burke - KI6LSW
Blog: http://psgrallywrx.blogspot.com/

david amor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think water injection is as common as it
> should be on the higher output cars. Most ecu's
> have outputs to map it and it's pretty simple and
> keeps cylinder temps in check. I have a nice
> system in the shop that I'd like to see go on my
> ex car.
>
> "this is certainly not a game for flyweights or
> ping-pong players-all arguments to the contrary"
> -C.B.

"Back in the day" maybe either Millen or Buffum ( my failing memory again) had a large 3 to 5 gallon poly tank behind main cage hoop for water injection.

Or make everyone run 87 octane (available everywhere).

One thing to refocus this rant is to point out the original goals of Anders' proposal.

STOCK car, STOCK engine internals, STOCK turbo, STOCK transmission (glassbox)

All of the discussions of 'yeah, of course the car will be faster w/o a restrictor' and lumping in all of the upgraded hot bits that people put in their cars NOW to compensate for being choked off is moot; those bits are banned. And by having the canned flash, it's an attempt to capture all of the engine bits that people are tempted to modify - transmission bits are easy to check by spinning tires and counting revs.

The root of the question is as follows: Is a non-restricted, STOCK EJ20 TD04-based car just as "fast" as a RESTRICTED STOCK EJ20 TD-04 that has undergone hundreds of dollars of dynoing, remapping, etc? Of course the torque/HP curves will look different between the two cars and how they drive will be different, but are they just as "fast"?

EricW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing to refocus this rant is to point out the
> original goals of Anders' proposal.
>
> STOCK car, STOCK engine internals, STOCK turbo,
> STOCK transmission (glassbox)
>
> All of the discussions of 'yeah, of course the car
> will be faster w/o a restrictor' and lumping in
> all of the upgraded hot bits that people put in
> their cars NOW to compensate for being choked off
> is moot; those bits are banned. And by having the
> canned flash, it's an attempt to capture all of
> the engine bits that people are tempted to modify
> - transmission bits are easy to check by spinning
> tires and counting revs.
>
> The root of the question is as follows: Is a
> non-restricted, STOCK EJ20 TD04-based car just as
> "fast" as a RESTRICTED STOCK EJ20 TD-04 that has
> undergone hundreds of dollars of dynoing,
> remapping, etc? Of course the torque/HP curves
> will look different between the two cars and how
> they drive will be different, but are they just as
> "fast"?



Thank You.
That's what I mean by "the false argument" people saying "well if you take the restrictor off a fully optimized restricted motor, then the guys are going to build the hell out of it and get a gazzilion BHPeees and they'll drive so much faster.

That is not the POINT.

The two sides on the balance scales are

in this corner a Neon Look-a-like Subie with forged high compression pistons, H profile rods, whacky cams, etc
vs
Stock.

(not a fully built unrestrcted bad ass motor)

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

I vote let them swap trannies to the stronger WRX/STI ones. My cousin broke his 5speed in his 2002 WRX downshifting from 3rd to 2nd as he was pulling into Safeway's parking lot.

They're stupid weak.

---

Welcome to the cult of JVL drink the koolaid or be banned.

EricW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing to refocus this rant is to point out the
> original goals of Anders' proposal.
>
> STOCK car, STOCK engine internals, STOCK turbo,
> STOCK transmission (glassbox)
>
> All of the discussions of 'yeah, of course the car
> will be faster w/o a restrictor' and lumping in
> all of the upgraded hot bits that people put in
> their cars NOW to compensate for being choked off
> is moot; those bits are banned. And by having the
> canned flash, it's an attempt to capture all of
> the engine bits that people are tempted to modify
> - transmission bits are easy to check by spinning
> tires and counting revs.
>
> The root of the question is as follows: Is a
> non-restricted, STOCK EJ20 TD04-based car just as
> "fast" as a RESTRICTED STOCK EJ20 TD-04 that has
> undergone hundreds of dollars of dynoing,
> remapping, etc? Of course the torque/HP curves
> will look different between the two cars and how
> they drive will be different, but are they just as
> "fast"?

You're slightly wrong, the main issue is enforcement.
The bottom line is there is no way to police the "stock equation" on a regional or national level without great expense and manpower. That is the whole thing wrong with the proposal. You are still talking having to get a ECU reflashed and some mods for a very vehicle specifc minimal interest class..in the name of economics. Want to race cheap?Get a cheap car. Pretty simple.