390 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

The 6 speed would probably help but makes the cars less "the same".  Less "the same" is not good.  
 
So there are some cheap mods that add peak HP and some torque.   What happens if you put a header on a 1.6, add some adjustable timing cam gears and add half a point of compression?  Will the car then make 130-135HP?  If so add a restrictor plate and see what you get for torque and HP.  Has anyone ever tried anything like this?  The cam gears and a couple of headers wouldn't take a lot of effort to try.  We know restrictor plates rob peak HP and have less of an effect on torque.  Seems to me that setting up the car to make more HP than needed and then restricting it has a good chance of delivering the desired effect.  Not all that hard to test.  
 
That and addressing the PITA AFM and heat issue might not be all that expensive.

I believe the "super" committee has tested above and SMAC and CRB have( will have ) that information.

[Blake Thompson]

Look Uncle Leo, I don't have any personal issue with you.  I do like poking the bear, especially when he snarls and swats every fudging time.

 

But the 6 speed is a crap box.  And everyone that calls me looking for one fails at math and research.  65,000 on my car and it was snarling and growling during auto cross.  2nd, 3rd, 4th.  blech.  Love my 5 speed.  Love it!

 

Which is why they go for $900+

 

So now I need three, at $900/ea + rebuild parts.  Hell, I could get an NB donor for that.

[Brandon]

The 6 speed would probably help but makes the cars less "the same".  Less "the same" is not good.  

 

So there are some cheap mods that add peak HP and some torque.   What happens if you put a header on a 1.6, add some adjustable timing cam gears and add half a point of compression?  Will the car then make 130-135HP?  If so add a restrictor plate and see what you get for torque and HP.  Has anyone ever tried anything like this?  The cam gears and a couple of headers wouldn't take a lot of effort to try.  We know restrictor plates rob peak HP and have less of an effect on torque.  Seems to me that setting up the car to make more HP than needed and then restricting it has a good chance of delivering the desired effect.  Not all that hard to test.  

 

That and addressing the PITA AFM and heat issue might not be all that expensive.  

 

The output numbers associated with the bolt-ons I've seen was a rise across the the entire RPM range and not specifically 'down low' where everyone feels it's needed.

 

What it sounds like we need is a camshaft with higher lift, shorter duration with more overlap (I think those are the three variables) to improve output below 5500RPM.

Essentially the new ND's camshaft from the 1.6L might be in order!

(that's how we get those models into SM!!!)

[Johnny D]

Essentially the new ND's camshaft from the 1.6L might be in order!
(that's how we get those models into SM!!!)

The hubs are 4 stud by 100 too right?.
Anyway to get rid of the hub problem too?
J~

[Steve Scheifler]

Danny, assuming for a moment that the 1.6 does need help and can be "fixed", $5k+ depending on what it was and how much of it was per season vs longer intervals. Unfortunately I think there are few 1.6 owners left who would do that with the expectation of being Majors competative. More likely a percentage of the more casual racers would invest and just piss off the rest of the guys they normally compete with but can't or won't do the same. I think that's where we are now and it won't change.

Erik, I'm hoping you car isn't far off in terms of power because you seemed to have a little on us, and I don't think we can get a lot more within the rules. As for machining on that head from 2010, some of the STR and other things started LONG before that so unless someone has personal knowledge of that particular one, I would not assume it will pass a teardown even if you aren't making top power.

Tom Sager, I and others have mentioned the option of adding overall power to the 1.6 then choking the top with a plate, but it rarely gets even a single response of any kind.

I do not want to transplant a 1.8 into my car and then ballast it up. If I wanted to drive an NA1.8 I'd buy or build one. If some people can't make weight in the 1.6, perhaps that's an attractive option for them, but it should not be "the solution" for the early cars.

[Ron Alan]

4 pages today of dejavu!

David...from strictly an availability and reliability standpoint(I know nothing with regards to the math), there were very few 6 speed Miatas made and finding a junkyard tranny from one of these cars will be an eye opener! Cost and a unit that was built for the trophy wife to shift makes it last on any list of changes to gain torque.

So I think I can speak to our region as I have attended almost every SCCA/NASA event for the last 5 years. There is a very healthy group of 1.6 cars in both. I would say at least 50 full time and 100 part time cars as well as seveveral very healthy rental businesses. With only a few exceptions, most are having a good time driving and competing with what they have! Of the 150 or so local drivers maybe 25 post on here. Of those 25, maybe 10 on any kind of a regular basis. Of those...2 are participating in the parity debate as far as I can tell.

What is my point? In politics, 51% is reported as a majority...60% a landslide. How many are really screeming for change in the 1.6 world?? I would say the crickets are speaking loud and clear!! Most of these guys and gals that got into this did so with there eyes open. They are content with beating or losing to the same cars over and over again. They have no intentions of spending $5000 plus dollars to finish in the same position. In fact, I'll bet if I did a man on the street interview with every driver at the next SCCA event 75% will not no what SMAC is! More than not had no idea the weight changed on there cars!

We have a very healthy 1.6 SSM class that runs mixed with SMT and SM in SCCA. It works well...in fact I think we are getting 50/50 entries average(40+ fields).

I think with the most recent changes, we are as close as ever! Problem is for this debate, we don't have a top prep 1.6 car and driver(proven) that is running at any of the big races! So why are we trying to make the 1.6 a slight over dog? For who? Will the NB car be a starter car?
Time marches on people...be careful what you wish for

[Bench Racer]

Tom, Jim and Ron, thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

The 6 speed would probably help but makes the cars less "the same".  Less "the same" is not good.  

 

So there are some cheap mods that add peak HP and some torque.   What happens if you put a header on a 1.6, add some adjustable timing cam gears and add half a point of compression?  Will the car then make 130-135HP?  If so add a restrictor plate and see what you get for torque and HP.  Has anyone ever tried anything like this?  The cam gears and a couple of headers wouldn't take a lot of effort to try.  We know restrictor plates rob peak HP and have less of an effect on torque.  Seems to me that setting up the car to make more HP than needed and then restricting it has a good chance of delivering the desired effect.  Not all that hard to test.  

 

That and addressing the PITA AFM and heat issue might not be all that expensive.  

 

Comments, nothing more or less:

 

The class is great today, but improvement should be ongoing. Allowing the 1.6er's some light at the end of the tunnel is where I'm coming from. I could care less if the affluent folks build 1.6 cars. We have a good example within the CenDiv of a mid pack 1.6 driver procuring a pro 99 build and driving to the pointy end. For me to see the driver do that was/is great. And yes Frank, throwing a bone to the 1.6 may bring some 1.6's to a Majors event. I do not have the budget to have my car at Majors events even with a better spacer (driver), but I do have budget to improve the car/engine.

 

The cars became "less the same" compared to the 1.6 the moment the torque cars were classed.

 

There is a 1.6 ITA which races at the Farm which includes the above items plus and including a 4.88 diff. Last time the car and Voytek were in the same race group (it's been more than once) it was an interesting race. IMHJ the ITA car should have shown a bit more strength. Because the car didn't show more strength, do we lay it on car prep (pro prepped), the driver or ???

 

Do the illegal Spec Miata 1.6 cams from back in the day add value to were the torque needs to be?

 

   
 

[Blake Thompson]

 I do not have the budget to have my car at Majors events even with a better spacer (driver), but I do have budget to improve the car/engine.

  

 

 

This just strikes me as a weird thing to say.

[LarryKing]

 

Am I doing this for a career change or am I doing it to enjoy racing and the atmosphere that surrounds the track?

 

I don't want to be perceived as picking on Ed Hardy, who even though we haven't met I like already because he's keeping the ol' #66 alive, but...

 

Ain't none of us jumping from Spec Miata to a professional seat, unless;

1. We find a way to be 14 years old again, and

2. We have (Daddy has) a very large fortune we would like to turn into a very small fortune.

 

This is a hobby.

 

The question I have, after reading Dave and Jim throw out amounts on what it take to compete, is do we want SM to be dominated by the few teams that have 6-figure annual budgets?

 

Are there ways/rules that can slow/prevent wallet racing in SM?

 

Can the class grow by attracting only the well-healed racer?

[FTodaro]

I don't want to be perceived as picking on Ed Hardy, who even though we haven't met I like already because he's keeping the ol' #66 alive, but...

 

Ain't none of us jumping from Spec Miata to a professional seat, unless;

1. We find a way to be 14 years old again, and

2. We have (Daddy has) a very large fortune we would like to turn into a very small fortune.

 

This is a hobby.

 

The question I have, after reading Dave and Jim throw out amounts on what it take to compete, is do we want SM to be dominated by the few teams that have 6-figure annual budgets?

 

Are there ways/rules that can slow/prevent wallet racing in SM?

 

Can the class grow by attracting only the well-healed racer?

Denny, all good questions, it is a part of the analysis.

 

I will say even though it can get expensive, i do not think it has to be. I think you can get similar results on less money, assuming the same talent behind the wheel.

 

I would think SM is still cheaper than SRF.

 

I look at our local talent who has made a splash in the Majors this year and has done well on a modest budget, IMO.

[davew]

the fastest thing on the race track is a checkbook. It is not feasable to regulate a checkbook.

 

Combine 1 part ego with 2 parts checkbook and we have an escalation of costs.

 

dave

[Mike Collins]

Any change to 1.6 cars will force more cars to lack most recent GCR allowed modifications and drive the price even lower as anyone who buys one would likely have to install said upgrade....  Keep making changes...  I love it, I'm getting SUPER CHEAP 1.6 cars that we convert to SSM trim and have a blast with.....

[Tom Sager]

The output numbers associated with the bolt-ons I've seen was a rise across the the entire RPM range and not specifically 'down low' where everyone feels it's needed.

 

What it sounds like we need is a camshaft with higher lift, shorter duration with more overlap (I think those are the three variables) to improve output below 5500RPM.

Essentially the new ND's camshaft from the 1.6L might be in order!

(that's how we get those models into SM!!!)

Well if bolt-ons will increase power across the range (let's just say roughly 5000-7000) then it should be entirely possible to add power and then remove some mostly from the top with a RP.  To my other point,  it seems that nobody has explored this unless the "super committee" as Jim D pointed out is or has.   So is the "super committee" top secret? Not even the SMAC has an knowledge?   Heck just knowing publically that such a committee exists and that they are working on something would be a plus. 

[Jim Drago]

Well if bolt-ons will increase power across the range (let's just say roughly 5000-7000) then it should be entirely possible to add power and then remove some mostly from the top with a RP.  To my other point,  it seems that nobody has explored this unless the "super committee" as Jim D pointed out is or has.   So is the "super committee" top secret? Not even the SMAC has an knowledge?   Heck just knowing publically that such a committee exists and that they are working on something would be a plus. 

Apparently that depends... The one who did most of the SM testing, looked at every engine builders head that was confiscated, did the testing on STR and the 1.6 engine testing is now building SM engines. Apparently he was given a pretty good education,( apparently it was on scholarship as MAZDA/ SCCA paid him to inspect all of this). Not quite sure how and NDA or Non compete was not signed, but this unethical as hell.  Even worse when you connect the dots between SCCA employees and said builder..   

[Johnny D]

Is there no NDA because the result were supposed to be released/public ?

 

He's got a jump on you, but how far ahead could he be with the rules ?

 

I guess will find out.

J~

[Jim Drago]

Is there no NDA because the result were supposed to be released/public ?

 

He's got a jump on you, but how far ahead could he be with the rules ?

 

I guess will find out.

J~

Nothing to do with getting a  jump.. Nor is anyone worried about the competition. just the ethics of allowing a builder to inspect everyone elses work, get paid to inspect the heads, get paid to do the testing and then start building SM engines? Seems like a huge conflict of interest and very unethical on part of those at the SCCA that allowed it to happen. I think it is fair to say if any engine builder was allowed to inspect heads from me, Ti Speed, Stewart, Rossini, Rush and X factor.. They could fastrak their program by literally years.  Maybe it is all just a coincidence that they started building SM engines after all this

[Bench Racer]

Apparently that depends... The one who did most of the SM testing, looked at every engine builders head that was confiscated, did the testing on STR and the 1.6 engine testing is now building SM engines. Apparently he was given a pretty good education,( apparently it was on scholarship as MAZDA/ SCCA paid him to inspect all of this). Not quite sure how and NDA or Non compete was not signed, but this unethical as hell.  Even worse when you connect the dots between SCCA employees and said builder..   

Did the Spec Miata head engine tester, now Miata engine builder, in the past drive the same class car as the SCCA prez??? Better yet, is his shop in Wisconsin?

[Jim Drago]

Did the Spec Miata head engine tester, now Miata engine builder, in the past drive the same class car as the SCCA prez??? Better yet, is his shop in Wisconsin?

I  have said too much it is all out there for anyone that wants to look. 

[Johnny D]

No disrespect, but haven't you inspected all the engine builders but just didn't get paid for it, or you have some gentlemens agreement ?

J~

[Bench Racer]

^ Jim's response, fair enough.

 

Next question to anyone with knowledge, what did the now illegal cams for the 1.6 engine from back in the day gain the 1.6 engine.

This would be called a potential bolt on beyond what has been mentioned.

Some time ago someone handed me 1 of the illegal cams and had the other one shipped to me, just checked the two side by side, 1 for 1.6, 1 for 1.8, total value as a pair, hmmmm. I may be weird, but not that weird.