Veteran Member
James, I'm attempting to get off my A$$ and do something about the 1.6. I would have hopped more 1.6er's would have shown interest, same ol same ol. bitch and moan and sit on the side lines. Get something going for you spec line of choice.
no thanks Bench. If a seasoned mechanical pro like you has trouble getting your views considered, an average mechanic like myself has no chance. I drive for myself, not to beat anyone. Just saying that if you think your car is ignored, try owning a 97.
Different strokes for different folks : )
no thanks Bench. If a seasoned mechanical pro like you has trouble getting your views considered, an average mechanic like myself has no chance. I drive for myself, not to beat anyone. Just saying that if you think your car is ignored, try owning a 97.
James, I understand what your saying and I do the same to improve my lap times.
Veteran Member
Irony alert: it's my understanding that there are now two (or possibly three) NA1.8s on the SMAC now - myself included.
Anyway, I'd suggest sending PMs to the respective SMAC members if you would like to operate somewhat in private but there may need to be a slight modification within the "Messages" portion of our profiles to support receiving them.
More to come...
Veteran Member
If I drive a '92 to work, does it count? 
Mark Bennett #321631
1.6 from 2002-2007
'99 from 2008-2010
I know making the 1.6 an "overdog" will be bad for the class, but I support making it more "raceable" for cheapest possible $$$, and letting weight and RP rule forevermore!
For faster reply than PM: miataboxes>>>AT<<<gmail>>DOT<<<com
Member
Member
AKA Cajun Miata Man; Overdog Driver
And I did write my letter........
With a proposed solution? May I ask what idea you came up with to help the 1.6?, I am very curious what you figured out.
James York
sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
2003 Spec Miata
#03
Member
Member
John Guthrie owner / driver 1.6
SCCA 3338557
NASA # 117381
I endorse any mods that would help 1.6 compete with 99 / V V T. car . I agree
most 1.6ers would pony up the $ for improvements . 1.6 is a fun car to race.
I don't buy the argument that sense there are 1.6 guys that would not spend
the $ you hold back the guys that want to be competitive . It would be a hell of a
lot cheaper than scraping the car and building a new one . My 2 cents
I
Veteran Member
It's good to see some new folks posting here (and I'm not picking on Mr. Guthrie specifically now), but there was a suggestion 3-4 years ago about getting the 99+ front subframe permitted on the NAs and you would have thought someone was pilfering dollars from people's wallets!
The uproar consisted of "Why should I have to spend money to compete vs. the 99s? Why can't we slow THEM down?!" only to have the rule suggestion drop before the 3-year rule freeze went into effect.
And we're talking something like $400-500 worth of new parts + install/setup/alignment that drew such responses...
So again, it's good to see folks who own 1.6s giving some support behind spending some money to bring their cars up to par.
Veteran Member
It's good to see some new folks posting here (and I'm not picking on Mr. Guthrie specifically now), but there was a suggestion 3-4 years ago about getting the 99+ front subframe permitted on the NAs and you would have thought someone was pilfering dollars from people's wallets!
The uproar consisted of "Why should I have to spend money to compete vs. the 99s? Why can't we slow THEM down?!" only to have the rule suggestion drop before the 3-year rule freeze went into effect.
And we're talking something like $400-500 worth of new parts + install/setup/alignment that drew such responses...
So again, it's good to see folks who own 1.6s giving some support behind spending some money to bring their cars up to par.
Veteran Member
Butch,
My thought from "the beginning" (once the NA1.8 was permitted the 4.3 differential), is the permitting of the use of the 99+ subframe would finally make the entire platform, minus aero, identical across all model years. Whether any particular driver would perceive it as a needed update or not, it would have been a case of using "may install" as opposed to "must install".
As far as getting torque 'down low' and not power 'up top' - those are two diametrically opposed goals in terms of the 1.6L engine performance unfortunately (as I understand their dynamics).
Here's the $64k question: if you're allocating that range of budget, would you be against installing a 1.8L in your NA?
BOOM! Instant torque down low.
Different strokes for different folks : )
Personal details only, at this time please leave all the discussion to the other threads.
Breaking with this thought ^. We all don't drink the same cool-aid. How about the SMAC/CRB allow the 1.6er's to implement a 99 engine in the NA chassis. I have never been able to figure out how the 99 suspension parts implemented in a NA chasis would fill the 1.6 torque short fall. Don't anyone go thru the corner speed deal, please.
EDIT:
Trust me, I'm as slow typing as I am driving. I didn't follow your engine swap thought in your previous post. Been saying do the swap for some time.
Veteran Member
Don't say BOOM when you are talking about SM engines.
wheel
Veteran Member
Ok now see where you were going with the subframe.Butch,
My thought from "the beginning" (once the NA1.8 was permitted the 4.3 differential), is the permitting of the use of the 99+ subframe would finally make the entire platform, minus aero, identical across all model years. Whether any particular driver would perceive it as a needed update or not, it would have been a case of using "may install" as opposed to "must install".
As far as getting torque 'down low' and not power 'up top' - those are two diametrically opposed goals in terms of the 1.6L engine performance unfortunately (as I understand their dynamics).
Here's the $64k question: if you're allocating that range of budget, would you be against installing a 1.8L in your NA?
BOOM! Instant torque down low.
Veteran Member
*cue the snark*
But SM is supposed to be a low-cost, entry level class where you can drop in a junkyard motor and go racing!!!
Here's my perspective:
Whether you're building a 1.6/1.8 or a 99+, the costs are going to be pretty-much equitable regardless of the engine. It doesn't matter which engine you're spending money on, you're still spending money so why not apply it to a more-favorable outcome in the long run and one where there's less variability between the possibilities?
The key thing being, in terms of parity (I know, I know, I know...), attempting to balance across four engines and two models is what leads us down these paths of debate. Eliminating as many of the differences between the platforms (the last two as I understand them being front subframe & aero) combined with consolidation of the powerplants, you've got a good base to being further tweaked in the future. Get everyone on a 1.8L engine and then you can refine further (give the 94-97 the extra 100+RPM they've been missing, open up the plates, lower the weights, blah, blah, blah...)
If there are folks willing to spend money on 'more parity' for the 1.6L, what's wrong in moving forward with what's been done since the first '94 model was rear-ended?
Veteran Member
The uproar consisted of "Why should I have to spend money to compete vs. the 99s? Why can't we slow THEM down?!" only to have the rule suggestion drop before the 3-year rule freeze went into effect.
And we're talking something like $400-500 worth of new parts + install/setup/alignment that drew such responses...
We balked at the cost and lack of used parts at the time (4 years ago?). Plus it really doesn't seem to address the issue. The subframe isn't going to help the 1.6 climb the hills at Laguna or get out of low RPM corners as quick as the 1.8 cars (esp those with 99+ engines). It would be an interesting conceptual exercise to have them all on the same suspension but there is no data on whether it is actually beneficial.
The rear subframe is a little over $560 new. The rear lower arms are $140 ish, the rear uppers are $130 ish. The front subframe is $370 - 400 ish. Front upper arms are a little over $100 and lowers are ~$180. On top of that you need a new steering rack as the NA rack doesn't work on the NB subframe. That's well north of $2,000 right there.
Do you have any data about how much that would help the 1.6 cars and 1.8 NA cars? How much extra speed would we supposedly carry through corners with the NB suspension? What are the lap time deltas?
There was no data presented to provide substance to the expenditure from the rule change. Those selling the parts would benefit the most from my perspective.
On the other hand, we know the 1.6 differs substantially compared to the 1.8s on the torque curve. Plenty of evidence to that.
I'd be willing to do a 1.8 swap if I could find inexpensive donor engines. They go in rather easily. Don't have the budget to do it this year as I just spent a couple of grand rebuilding my 1.6 so a phased approach would be recommended.
Irregardless of this, I'm not interested in National$ racing at this time. Don't have the time and prefer to put the money in the bank. I'll stick to racing Sealed SM in my region. This is the best incarnation of this quote:
SM is supposed to be a low-cost, entry level class where you can drop in a junkyard motor and go racing!!!
AKA Cajun Miata Man; Overdog Driver
We balked at the cost and lack of used parts at the time (4 years ago?). Plus it really doesn't seem to address the issue. The subframe isn't going to help the 1.6 climb the hills at Laguna or get out of low RPM corners as quick as the 1.8 cars (esp those with 99+ engines). It would be an interesting conceptual exercise to have them all on the same suspension but there is no data on whether it is actually beneficial.
The rear subframe is a little over $560 new. The rear lower arms are $140 ish, the rear uppers are $130 ish. The front subframe is $370 - 400 ish. Front upper arms are a little over $100 and lowers are ~$180. On top of that you need a new steering rack as the NA rack doesn't work on the NB subframe. That's well north of $2,000 right there.
Do you have any data about how much that would help the 1.6 cars and 1.8 NA cars? How much extra speed would we supposedly carry through corners with the NB suspension? What are the lap time deltas?
It was proposed as being "allowed" not required. Yet the community of 1.6 driver shot it down No one was being forced to spend any money and if the value is not there, no need to implement. I never understood the blowback about the idea but whatever....
James York
sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
2003 Spec Miata
#03
AKA Cajun Miata Man; Overdog Driver
As for allowing the 1.6 to drop in a 1.8 or 99 motor in I think the price would be crazy. Just a rough estimate build a new motor 6-7k new air box,wire harness,ECM,exhaust,ect... Now your talking 9-10k witch I think would be crazy for us to have to spend that kind of money. I would just sell my car for 7-8k ( huge loss ) and spend the 10k and my 7-8k on a 99 build.
Kuch,
The pro motor costs is roughly uniform across all models and so it would be a wash when the time for driver to replace any motor they have.... So i would approach it as a net zero.
The cost of the conversion would be real though.
James York
sponsored by:
Stan's Auto Center, Lafayette LA
powered by:
East Street Racing, Memphis TN
2003 Spec Miata
#03
Veteran Member
It was proposed as being "allowed" not required. Yet the community of 1.6 driver shot it down No one was being forced to spend any money and if the value is not there, no need to implement. I never understood the blowback about the idea but whatever....
My perception is that parity among 1.6s would have been upset. Would turn into a bit of wallet racing among the 1.6 crowd IMO. Those with $ would upgrade and gain whatever potential benefit was involved. That change alone is still unlikely to get the 1.6 up to par with the 99.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
Report
