199 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

[Johnny D]

Dumb luck on my part. Was looking for a donor and ran across a 99 for 1k on CL.

Rented a 94 for a few seasons before I bought, ran some 1.6 too, but always owned a 99.

J~

[Caveman-kwebb99]

does it count when you drive a 95 model 2 seconds faster then a 99????  I think the 99 needs more power!!!  that or we need to make the 95 and and the 1.6 run the 4:10 rear end so that therte is parity with the 99  

[Jim Drago]

Ok, hate to be kill joy ( Ok I like it a little) But bench started a topic.. All the parity BS started with Pats post should be deleted or put in the parity thread again. I don't "think" the goal was to start yet another parity thread, but who knows. Please stick to the Tq disparity and what can be done there. I think there was exactly zero ideas posted so far.

Jim

[Tom Sager]

does it count when you drive a 95 model 2 seconds faster then a 99????  I think the 99 needs more power!!!  that or we need to make the 95 and and the 1.6 run the 4:10 rear end so that therte is parity with the 99

 

Ya know we can all point to a race here or there or a lap here where one year car did better than another.  Or we can point to 1 car. None of that matters. The body of work (not to be confused with body work) by each type of car and the choices that racers make as a whole says it all.  Forget the opinions (including mine).  If those intent on winning (which is a lot of drivers in our class) thought the '95 was the car to have then you would see mostly '95's on the race track and at the top of the results.   Same could be said for the 1.6. There may be some regional differences that could be explained by the style of tracks in those areas and the local choice of cars.

 

Just like in financial markets, capital moves away places where it is treated harshly.  Racers vote with their pocket books too.  

[Johnny D]

Ya know we can all point to a race here or there or a lap here where one year car did better than another.  Or we can point to 1 car. None of that matters. The body of work (not to be confused with body work) by each type of car and the choices that racers make as a whole says it all.  Forget the opinions (including mine).  If those intent on winning (which is a lot of drivers in our class) thought the '95 was the car to have then you would see mostly '95's on the race track and at the top of the results.   Same could be said for the 1.6. There may be some regional differences that could be explained by the style of tracks in those areas and the local choice of cars.

 

Just like in financial markets, capital moves away places where it is treated harshly.  Racers vote with their pocket books too.  

 

Were you asking for a bell curve here?

J~

[steveracer]

Let the 1.6 cars run .040 over, stock compression pistons from Mazda.

 

That should boost torque some without being ridiculous.

 

If the torque #'s get closer, so should the weights.

 

I still like the idea of same motor and suspension eventually, with the only difference being headlights.

[Kyle Freiheit]

I used to be on the fence about the 99 engine, suspension, diff swap but now I am for it. 

 

For some it will make sense to just sell and build a 99+. Others it will make sense to swap everything over. Having the choice would make sense. Oh.... just so we are on topic... the same engine in the car is what fixes the torque. 

 

Kyle

[AW33COM]

A devil's advocate would say the following:

 

If SM would end up being 99s only (btw, the only way to make cars super equal), would the total average differences between stock engines be smaller than the total average differences across many engine builders? If true, could we drop the PRO build motors and save $7000?.  After all, aren't we all for equal and more affordable racing?   

 

Bench Racer, torque graph presented like that is sort of misleading, because it does not account for car's weight.  It also does not show the average RPM during the race per SM type.  Once you have the RPM range plus the time spend at different RPM intervals, account for weight differences, across multiple tracks, you can calculate which car has an advantage, and by how much. 

[Jim Drago]

A devil's advocate would say the following:
 
If SM would end up being 99s only (btw, the only way to make cars super equal), would the total average differences between stock engines be smaller than the total average differences across many engine builders? If true, could we drop the PRO build motors and save $7000?.  After all, aren't we all for equal and more affordable racing?

First there are no longer any crate 99/00 engines. To answer your question, look at the Runoffs, there is virtually no difference in pro built 99/00 engines, all were VERY close, far closer than crates would be if they were available IMO

[Ron Alan]

First there are no longer any crate 99/00 engines. To answer your question, look at the Runoffs, there is virtually no difference in pro built 99/00 engines, all were VERY close, far closer than crates would be if they were available IMO

Ahmmm....torque anyone? anyone? Bueller?

 

Bench Racer, torque graph presented like that is sort of misleading, because it does not account for car's weight.  It also does not show the average RPM during the race per SM type.  Once you have the RPM range plus the time spend at different RPM intervals, account for weight differences, across multiple tracks, you can calculate which car has an advantage, and by how much. 

Come on genius...enough gobbledygook.  The question here is how do you get more torque out of a 1.6 at specifically the lower range of rpm's we run in?? And do so without disrupting the current parity   

[Stix37867]

As I stated in the parity thread, the key seems to be a restrictor plate to remove the 'top prep' the 1.6 requires. Maybe .040 over pistons like was mentioned, I believe I suggested a spec header and spec flywheel, or maybe just some spec cams. Whatever the performance modification, it needs to put the 1.6 into the high 130hp range at least so it can then be restricted via restrictor plate. You'd then gain all the torque down low from the modifications but with a top end dialed back. Parity would then be easy adjustable through all 4 models using both weight and restrictor size when needed.

[tburas56]

Engine management for 1.6 

[Bench Racer]

Bench Racer, torque graph presented like that is sort of misleading, because it does not account for car's weight. 

 

It also does not show the average RPM during the race per SM type. 

 

Once you have the RPM range plus the time spend at different RPM intervals, account for weight differences, across multiple tracks, you can calculate which car has an advantage, and by how much. 

IMHJ, not for folks who can visualize and have a feel. Use a percentage number or convert the torques of the 1.6 and 99 at 4,000 rpm to a pound load, it's quite eye opening. Then do the same at each 500 rpm increment.   

 

There is a comment of frequency of racing below 5,500 rpm in the opening post.  You have a 1990, how do you make out below 5,500 rpm with the 99?

 

To get some thoughts moving I used the KISS principle.  There have been some how to make the torque more equal between the 1.6 and 99 thoughts posted.

 

Some ideas may be off the charts, it doesn't cost anything to post ideas.

[Jim Drago]

As I stated in the parity thread, the key seems to be a restrictor plate to remove the 'top prep' the 1.6 requires. Maybe .040 over pistons like was mentioned, I believe I suggested a spec header and spec flywheel, or maybe just some spec cams. Whatever the performance modification, it needs to put the 1.6 into the high 130hp range at least so it can then be restricted via restrictor plate. You'd then gain all the torque down low from the modifications but with a top end dialed back. Parity would then be easy adjustable through all 4 models using both weight and restrictor size when needed.

This is the only post in the entire thread that makes any sense at all IMO. That being said, I am glad you made it and not me So you are saying we need to spend all this money on our 1.6 cars to go faster only for you to restrict us down? A huge issue is RP engine versus non RP engine. The more we restrict the 99+, the flatter the curves become and more are under the curve.

[dfuser]

it would be a lot easier to remove the restrictor from the 99+ 

[Stix37867]

This is the only post in the entire thread that makes any sense at all IMO. That being said, I am glad you made it and not me So you are saying we need to spend all this money on our 1.6 cars to go faster only for you to restrict us down? A huge issue is RP engine versus non RP engine. The more we restrict the 99+, the flatter the curves become and more are under the curve.

I guess I don't see it as spending a whole lot of money. I figured for about $1000 we could get where we want. Take a look at this header http://www.racingbea...ders/56005.html

They showed a 4hp gain on a presumed stock 1.6. Now add the already approved intake, exhaust, and fp tuning ability (also possibly a lightened flywheel) and it should get us to our goal since we will be able to tune the car to the header more so than racing beat could.

The RP issue actually is a benefit in my eyes. It masks the quirks with each motor and keeps overall costs down by eliminating the need to push engine tolerances so far to the limit that we need to do frequent rebuilds or possibly blown motors. RPs also keep the abuse down (assuming you don't go from 3rd to 2nd at the runoffs) since we are only going 3/4 throttle. All combined these motors last considerably longer than normal 'race' motors.

The goal should be to get all four cars on RPs and possibly start opening them up a little more. Like you said, this would help bring some of the flatness out of the curves.

[dfuser]

Why not different SM classes all under the SM class, instead of trying again and again to equalize cars that are truly not the same.  All we keep doing is added cost for what should be a SPEC class. 

 

SM 1.6 90-93

SM 1.8A 94-95

SM 1.8B 96-97

SM 99-00

SM 01-05

 

Would that allow more people to bring there cars to the races knowing they can compete within their class

 

Also the benefits for equalizing the cars at a certain RPM can go out of the window based on the track, Wouldn't it?

 

But then again, I am high on Caffeine today!

[Bench Racer]

Brainstorming, freelancing, whatever brings players into the thread. Good stuff folks, keep er going.

[pat slattery]

I don't proclaim to know the best method to increase the 1.6 torque, I have heard lighter flywheel, and than others say that will do nothing.  I have heard bigger pistons, headers, Todd is talking about engine management.  Who knows what these moves will do.  Hopefully someone that is an engine builder can enlighten the masses.   

 

What about removing the restrictors on the 99 and giving the 1.6 something to catch up to the 99.  I don't have the answers, hopefully the engine builders might, but the 1.6 and I am sure the 1.8 also needs help.