177 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

Danny,

If those dyno numbers are the best NA 1.8 , and those numbers are 5-6 hp off of a good 99, and the 1.8 now weighs identical to a 99, what is the advantage your group saw that the NA 1.8 has over a 99 that it would win over a 99? Asked another way; why would a guy looking at average hp numbers from top prep of both years pick a platform that weighs the same but has 5-6 hp below another year with the same weight?

James

[Todd Lamb]

 

 

FWIW - Behind the scenes I have shared dyno sheets with the SMAC and have worked very, very, hard to open up lines of communication between us.

 

 

This is all news to me....

[Xav]

This is all news to me....

Talk to Sean

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I asked mom and she said it was ok dad since I was to scared to ask.you cause I know you would say no!

[Jamz14]

Xavier,

Same question posed to Danny.

[Ron Alan]

 

Here is a dyno trace showing a top prepared NA1.8 on Rossini Racing's Dynojet on August 18th 2016. The Data traces show the top 3 runs with the plate, and the top 3 runs without the plate. 

 

Note that while the PEAK TQ difference is around 3-4ft lbs, the TQ difference in the area that the car races is closer to 5ftlbs in the RPM range that Miata's race in (generally 5250 RPM to 7,000 RPM)  

 

 

 

 

Oh Yes it is. Ignore the Numbers - every dyno yields different numbers

For instance Rossini and OPM dynojets are both very similar in numbers but about 5 less than other top prep shop dyno's

 

Really top shelf 99's on Rossini and OPM dyno is around 126Hp, 118TQ and top shelf VVT are around 124HP, 122 TQ

 

122.87/115.26 for this top shelf NA 1.8

 

126/118 for a top shelf 99 on the same dyno.

 

Now the cars are same weight...If this is what information you had to go by Danny...which would you choose? And for that matter why would one choose a VVT over a 99 with 25lbs more(ok, give me torque )? Bottom line i dont think the numbers HERE closely represent what is out there. But I'm using your numbers to say do more!

 

 And to add fuel to the fire...there would seem to be a majority who feel the NB geometry is better than the NA and then you  have aero??? 

 

And yes...I'm looking for the same answer as James!!!!

[Erik Hardy]

I have an open question regarding the NA1.8 change, What was the reasoning for changing two things (plate & weight) at once? This goes against the basics of a scientific method, especially because they are inverse of each other. 

[Danny Steyn]

I have an open question regarding the NA1.8 change, What was the reasoning for changing two things (plate & weight) at once? This goes against the basics of a scientific method, especially because they are inverse of each other. 

Not sure I understand your last statement Erik

[Rob Burgoon]

Not sure I understand your last statement Erik

 

I can't tell if Erik's serious, haha

[Jim Drago]

Xavier,

Same question posed to Danny.

I'm not commenting for Danny or Xavier.. but I'll give my opinion based on my experience.. 

 

We have done VERY few 1.8 cars over last 4 years, a total of two.  They were about 4-5 hp off and 4 ft lbs off a comparable built 99. While the dyno sheets posted and subsequent information tend to cause you to think otherwise, I think this change will be a good one. I also think if people believe the cars have a real shot, more effort may be put into building them and the cars will get faster        

[Danica Davison]

Not sure I understand your last statement Erik

 

"This goes against the basics of a scientific method, especially because they are inverse of each other."
 
Because it is changing two independent variables at once and based on the Scientific method, you only want to change one independent variable at a time.  It is very important that you isolate the effects of each independent variable. You do not want to change more than one variable at once, for if you do it becomes more difficult to analyze the effects of each change on the dependent variable.

 

I obviously do not know the process of this testing, but I understand Erik's point pretty clearly.

[Danica Davison]

I will say though, being around two good 1.8NAs recently, with good drivers doing this test, it seemed to make the car much more equal to my 99.  I think it is a step in the right direction. I would argue pulling the weight down ~25 pounds from the 99 but we will see how that goes in the near future. 

[Jamz14]

Thank you for your reply jim.

Imo though, only a fool would be considering a new NA 1.8 build. With or without this change. For different reasons than straight parity.

[Ron Alan]

I'm not commenting for Danny or Xavier.. but I'll give my opinion based on my experience.. 

 

We have done VERY few 1.8 cars over last 4 years, a total of two.  They were about 4-5 hp off and 4 ft lbs off a comparable built 99. While the dyno sheets posted and subsequent information tend to cause you to think otherwise, I think this change will be a good one. I also think if people believe the cars have a real shot, more effort may be put into building them and the cars will get faster        

Called perception which I agree with! 

 

Unfortunately, unlike the ground swell for change by a few vocal 1.6 owners this generation of cars has never had that real loud advocate. Had i known(Sean did hint)...I would have said "plate" only! (Assuming the powers that be didn't want to make the car 2325!)

[Jamz14]

I don't think you will see a single car increase in the number of builds.

[Erik Hardy]

Not sure I understand your last statement Erik

 

The two variables work against you, in complex ways, that make it difficult to judge the outcome. The increased weight should decrease corner speeds and acceleration, but now you have more power, resulting in a net..............improvement?

 

Is it a improvement because we want it to be a gain or did the 50lbs actually make it worse depending on the 3-5hp gain in power. Thats my concern. We all know the 1.8na needs help, just want it to get the help it needs. 

 

When I pulled the plate on my 1.8na, it was ~.7-1mph improvement at midohio, with the additional 50lbs, it might actually be the same/worse. 

[Todd Lamb]

Talk to Sean

I attempted dialogue with Jerry Kunzman/Mazda/NASA/SCCA regarding aligning the rulesets many months ago and there was ZERO response.

 

Seems very much like one way communication from my point of view.

[Jim Drago]

I would have said "plate" only! (Assuming the powers that be didn't want to make the car 2325!)

 I like the idea of the 1.8 cars all being close on weight and using the 99 as the 'norm' as it is now probably the most common and flanked by older and newer version 1.8 cars. This will be a good change IMO, it may need another tweak, but pulling the plate and no weight is not the correct answer by any measure

[Danny Steyn]

Just sayin', there are three possible approaches to implementing changes, for the NA1.8 or any other year/model

• Give them too much additional performance, and when you see you have created an overdog, then take some of what you gave them away, or
• Give them too little additional performance, and when you see you still have an underdog, then give them an additional break, or
• GIve them exactly the right amount and make no further changes

One of these approaches is less desirable than the other two

[Johnny D]

I attempted dialogue with Jerry Kunzman/Mazda/NASA/SCCA regarding aligning the rulesets many months ago and there was ZERO response.

 

Seems very much like one way communication from my point of view.

 

Its that can do attitude we all love about you.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

J~