199 replies to this topic

[steveracer]

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!

Have you been talking to Kreepy Karl?

[dfuser]

Have you been talking to Kreepy Karl?

HELLS NO!

[Bench Racer]

Have you been talking to Kreepy Karl?

He ALWAYS reved up the noted others and got some discussion going. Hey, if he's got some ideas let em fly. 

[DrDomm]

...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

 

Definitely a "close" race.  Does that mean the engines were "VERY close" in terms of HP and torque?

[Tom Sager]

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!

You are one of the smartest guys in the room.  Anyone who recognizes that the '94-'95 is different than the '96-'97 needs to send a resume to the SCCA CRB and get on the SMAC and educate (or armwrestle) the rest of them.

[Jim Drago]

Definitely a "close" race.  Does that mean the engines were "VERY close" in terms of HP and torque?

I have never felt race results were a great indication, A close race does not mean always mean that the HP and TQ were close.

I would say, look how close the top 15 -20 were in qualifying times that is a pretty good indication that the cars are very close in HP and TQ
Jim

[Bench Racer]

The question is, how can we make the torque more equal between the 1.6 and the 99 below 5,500 rpm? occuring on the left coast. 

 

Thanks to Jim Drago for posting the dyno files.

 

David Dewhurst

 

Blue is the 2002

Purple is the 1999

Red is the 1.6

 

 

mmm

 If we take a different direction, the discussion has been increasing the 1.6 torque to the 99 torque values. What if we examine how the 99 plus achives greater torque and the 02 has more torque yet and a flater curven below 5,000 rpm. Come on folks with the know, share with we who don't know. Along with the extra .2 L, is the variable length intake manifold one of the big players and .5 increase in compression for the 02?

[Tom Sager]

 If we take a different direction, the discussion has been increasing the 1.6 torque to the 99 torque values. What if we examine how the 99 plus achives greater torque and the 02 has more torque yet and a flater curven below 5,000 rpm. Come on folks with the know, share with we who don't know. Along with the extra .2 L, is the variable length intake manifold one of the big players and .5 increase in compression for the 02?

The greater power is the result of good engineers responding to the marketing department's request to develop a more powerful engine for the '99 that they can promote along with the good looks of the new wind tunnel designed body and the revised suspension. Higher compression, different cams, variable intake manifold, different throttle body, different ignition and fuel management systems, different injectors and a different exhaust manifold.  

 

The '01 was a bit of a flop as they advertised 155HP but never delivered and early buyers of these cars got a refund from Mazda.  

[Sean - MiataCage]

If torque is the issue what about just having the 99-05's defeat the variable intake runner so that it defaults to the high rpm runner and not the low end torque one.  I'm not a motor guy, but how hard would that be.....

 

For the record I don't really see the need for any changes and would leave it all alone, but since the question was asked I'm simply throwing crap at a wall to see what sticks.

 

Sean

[Bench Racer]

If torque is the issue what about just having the 99-05's defeat the variable intake runner so that it defaults to the high rpm runner and not the low end torque one.  I'm not a motor guy, but how hard would that be.....

 

.

 

Sean

Interesting that the 99 lower rpm runners/path (longer than high rpm runners) and the higher rpm runners/path (shorter than low rpm runners) are not actually true different lengths with the 99 intake as they are with some other marquee. The butterflys open the lower rpm long runners/path into a resonance chamber creating a  situation similar to having higher rpm shorter runners/path. Therefore default to open butterflys. Anyone test this with butterflys secured open for low rpm torque results/difference? Hey, as I said in the Runoffs lunch meeting, I'm not a motor guy, only trying to learn on your dimes.

Drago?

Wheeler?

Wheel?

Colins?

Anybody?

 

[Jim Drago]

with disconnected they make less Peak Tq for sure on 99/00. 01/05 does not use the same type of intake at all and does not work remotely similar. 

 

For your benefit ... watch Steyn Sprints video, in addition to the diff issue we spoke about ( which was 95% of my issue) I ran that entire race with it not working. (bad selenoid valve)

[davew]

It is hard to see on the dyno graph posted above. I use a different scale on my dyno, 60-140 hp versus the 0-140 shown here. If you look closely at the 99 horsepower curve, right at 5200 rpm, there is a dip. That dip is when the VIX opens. As I said, on a different scale the dip is very noticable. If the dip is not there, you have a modified ECU.

 

I am firmly in the camp of the 1.6 not needing any special rules adjustment. They are 3-5 years behind on developement when compared to the 99-00 and a couple years behind the 01-05 cars. Out side of Todds car, a full blown 1.6 car has not been built in years. And that car is now 2 years old.

 

I am in favor of 99 suspension and allowing 1.6 cars to update to NA1.8 engines. Then leave plates and weights alone.

 

Dave

[pat slattery]

Dave, with there being plenty of 1.6 cars out there, why has there not been more development.  It  would certainly be cheaper to take a 1.6 car that you already own than building a $25,000 or more 99 car.  Seems that the problem still is the torque issue in the bottom range, and that is using Todds car as a reference.  I would still like to hear other engine builders that are getting those 1.6 numbers routinely.  I doubt we will.

[Jim Drago]

I would still like to hear other engine builders that are getting those 1.6 numbers routinely.  I doubt we will.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful Pat I can't help it if we are better than the rest

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Just give the 1.6 a little help so I can sell mine for a little more then $ 7k then change it back !

[Bench Racer]

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful Pat I can't help it if we are better than the rest

And the torque numbers say your not as beautiful as you claim. Because Todds/??? 1.6 is no better than other 1.6's when it's forced a couple times per lap for what ever reason to race below 5,000 rpm's.

The 99 wins each of those drag races and that's lost time.

The dyno graphs show no 1.6 beauty below 5,000 rpm compared to the 99. The left coast 1.6's show these same symptoms.

[Jim Drago]

And the torque numbers say your not as beautiful as you claim. Because Todds/??? 1.6 is no better than other 1.6's when it's forced a couple times per lap for what ever reason to race below 5,000 rpm's.
The 99 wins each of those drag races and that's lost time.
The dyno graphs show no 1.6 beauty below 5,000 rpm compared to the 99. The left coast 1.6's show these same symptoms.

[Bench Racer]

^ Typical default.

[James York]

And the torque numbers say your not as beautiful as you claim. Because Todds/??? 1.6 is no better than other 1.6's when it's forced a couple times per lap for what ever reason to race below 5,000 rpm's.

The 99 wins each of those drag races and that's lost time.

The dyno graphs show no 1.6 beauty below 5,000 rpm compared to the 99. The left coast 1.6's show these same symptoms.

 

Typical post chicken little.....

 

[davew]

And the torque numbers say your not as beautiful as you claim. Because Todds/??? 1.6 is no better than other 1.6's when it's forced a couple times per lap for what ever reason to race below 5,000 rpm's.

The 99 wins each of those drag races and that's lost time.

The dyno graphs show no 1.6 beauty below 5,000 rpm compared to the 99. The left coast 1.6's show these same symptoms.

 

Devils advocate here:

 

The theory is that the lighter weight allows higher corner speeds and quicker acceleration to make up for the lack of torque.

 

Dave