1001 replies to this topic

[Sean - MiataCage]

This 'cheat' has been around so long that I suspect there are very few 1.6 cars that have not already part-binned/welds cleaned the header. Thus, allowing this is of no benefit at all.

 

I vote one aftermarket header is chosen and spec'd. Does MazdaSpeed already sell an AM header for the 1.6? (I can't find one on their cumbersome website)

 

Send you letter please.......  Your vote on this website means nothing official.

[FTodaro]

From my understanding of what is on the table, the three or four things are intended to combine to give the 1.6 a little nudge, not a big push.

 

The allowance of grinding the welds on the headers is more to bring all the headers to the same level of performance to avoid part hunting ( just like the plunge Cut on the heads) was intended to do., rather than permitting a full blown header. Weld grinding is consistent with keep costs low.

 

On the flywheel issue, we may just be talking about second gear at some tracks, but as Sean said, it may not help much but can't hurt. We are talking about a game of inches in most cases anyway.

[Tom Hampton]

How long is the RFI open for?  I intend to write a letter...but, want some facts before I do. 

 

I agree with Denny.  If this is a "top prep" 1.6L to "top prep" '99 standard....then cherry picked-exhaust (or stealthily ground) manifolds are already part of that definition. Making the grinding explicitly legal is only decreasing the difference between a less-than-top prep 1.6 and top-prep 1.6---a good thing, but it isn't addressing any difference between a top-prep 1.6L and a top-prep 99.

 

I don't trust the data from JPM on the 1.6L.  That engine was in-no-way representative of a true top-prep 1.6L engine.  I think that data over-estimates the benefit of the header.  So, I'd like to gather some of my own data before I write in a letter requesting an aftermarket header instead of/in addition to the weld-cleanup.  But, I don't want to miss the window because my builder is at NASA champs and the Run-offs over the next month or so. 

 

I don't think a "spec'd part" is any more necessary than it is for the rest of the exhaust.  Allow the header and leave it open or spec a few key parmeters to keep the permutations "sane" (2-into-1 or 4-into-1 or whatever). Then let the marketplace stabilize to the one or two options.   There will be some early volatility, but word gets around quick what works and what doesn't. 

 

Edit: it is easier to slow the cars down, than it is to speed them up.  So, erring on the high side and then pulling back via competition adjustment seems a more prudent path.  No set of mods is going to get it right the first time anyway.  So, just take the need for a future competition adjustment as part of the PLAN. 

[Ron Alan]

The weld clean up is such a no-brainer...easy cheap and available to all who havent already done it 

 

Be sure to add the down pipe welds in your new wording SMAC!!!

 

Crazy thing is some of the WORST exhaust manifolds(huge welds blocking flow or creating turbulents)are coming on brand new parts from Mazda! So easy to clean before it goes in the car!

[Steve Scheifler]

Has anyone received a new one in the past few years that doesn't already have conspicuous grinding marks? I have purchased two of them years apart and neither would pass tech by Stevie Wonder.

[Jim Drago]

This 'cheat' has been around so long that I suspect there are very few 1.6 cars that have not already part-binned/welds cleaned the header. Thus, allowing this is of no benefit at all.

 

I vote one aftermarket header is chosen and spec'd. Does MazdaSpeed already sell an AM header for the 1.6? (I can't find one on their cumbersome website)

This is similar to timing and fuel pressure reg on 99's. Many had these mods before without being allowed. This leveled the playing field for all. I believe that a header that is legally allowed to clean up all the welds will be 1/1 better than 99% of the the tech legal versions out there.  So it should be a little something in the right direction

 

My letter said allow all four, but the flywheel is a waste of time and money IMO.  

[Johnny D]

Allowing competiors to use a grinder on the welds is a no brainer in my opinion.....  Not to mention that there is currenlty no spec or enforcable rule for checking the header welds in today's environment.

So this is basically effective today (who didn't know) for those who have read this, until something else comes out official, correct?
J~

[LarryKing]

 

little something in the right direction

 

I respectfully disagree. Cleaning-up the stock header will do nothing to close the gap between the NA6 and the NB.

 

Was Fowler's Barber experiment a cleaned-up OEM header or an aftermarket header? Lap times show he was equal but not dominant.

 

 

So this is basically effective today

It was effective in 2005. It means nothing today.

[Steve Scheifler]

For those of us who have never "improved" the stock headers or had a bunch from which to select even IF we could prove which was better, this will close the gap to "top prep" of ANY year.

[James York]

Wow.  All the bitching and moaning.  Here the SMAC is considering giving 4 performance enhancements with very little cost to owners and some vocal 1.6 prima donna's want more, or are just pissing on the presented options.  Even if its not enough, its a start and something ffs.

[LarryKing]

I suppose those of us who genuinely believe these changes will do little or nothing to improve parity should just STFU and go away.

 

I also guess if we don't agree we should expect to be called names. (The Trump school of debate)

[Bench Racer]

b

I will have the data for comparison this week. It had a cheapo header and turn signal removed, otherwise legal. The car was able to pull alongside my 99 in the race.

Transparency is good. Todd will this data be posted this week. With this data info ^ and the info posted by Danny, will the info validate the driver, car, header and or turn signal removed.

 

Handling track, elevation changes, barely 100 mph straights. Pulled along side Todd. Passed Danny/OPM rental VVT car. Alex in a different time zone.

 

No question in my mind of the driver value or the turn signal removed value (presuming the air temp at filter was approx. 10* or less above ambient). My question is the value of the header. Not arguing either way and not whining.

[Tom Hampton]

Wow.  All the bitching and moaning.  Here the SMAC is considering giving 4 performance enhancements with very little cost to owners and some vocal 1.6 prima donna's want more, or are just pissing on the presented options.  Even if its not enough, its a start and something ffs.

 

I don't agree.  Frankly, its the most constructive discussion that has been had involving anything related to parity in years...maybe ever. 

 

I see no reason to attempt to sabotage what is largely a constructive discussion about what the SCCA is proposing, and ultimately write letters to address the outcome of the discussion. 

[Bench Racer]

In light of Dave Wheeler's liability comment from back in the day with reference to lighting the Mazda OEM flywheel, where will the proposed two pounds be removed from the OEM flywheel? Can two pounds be removed from the flywheel clutch plate surface?

 

EDIT:

After doing a couple numbers I presume grind off the .095" two proud surfaces plus another .03" off the 10 3/8" diameter.

Is this Mazda acceptable?

Per the Mazda FSM if flywheel surface area for disc match up is more than .008" dial run out, replace the flywheel.

 

Johnny, your expertise on the subject.  

[38bfast]

I don't think the vocal minority would be happy until the 1.6 got a turbo and all the mid pack drivers could win at any race with a $5000 car. 

[Johnny D]

I suppose those of us who genuinely believe these changes will do little or nothing to improve parity should just STFU and go away.
 
I also guess if we don't agree we should expect to be called names. (The Trump school of debate)

Honestly, this is only one piece of the pie. driver/coaching/data, prep, etc (the full package) is all needed to be on the top steps.
If you're an average driver with average prep, running mid pack, you not going to see much or be on the podium all of a sudden.
I'd say if a real good driver and make no mistakes, close to top prep and were top ten (maybe top 5) or knocking on the door, you'd have a chance at podium.
I'd imagine with any adjustment.

J~

[Johnny D]

You beat me to it Ralph.

J~

[38bfast]

FWIW IMHO, If the SMAC gave any of the 1.8, 99, VVT cars 4 HP it would be a massive over dog. I mean out of the ball park over. JMHO. 

[Johnny D]

I hope when I suggested "the drag package" everyone understood it would be some type of wicker to slow the NB down.

Carry on.

J~

[Bench Racer]

Just so I understand it correctly, those in the know whom communicate off site for learning purposes can come on this Mazda Racers community communication site for everyone  and put down who they please and then tell each other how proud they are of themselves. Interesting that those fostering the class leave so many question go un-answered.

 

There is a very good reason someone sponsored JPM for his 1.6/99 build/test/dyno/results report services. Duh, someone desires more 1.6 cars at events. They sure as hell didn't sponsor JPM to shut up the vocal minority.

 

Where's then two pounds come off the flywheel? I looked at a flywheel, pull the dowels and grind away or???

 

EDIT:

After doing a couple numbers I presume grind off the .095" two proud surfaces plus another .03" off the 10 3/8" diameter.

Is this Mazda acceptable?

Per the Mazda FSM if flywheel surface area for disc match up is more than .008" dial run out, replace the flywheel.

Johnny, your expertise on the subject.