17 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

What Do You Think

SM
1. #17680 (Ralph Provitz) 1.6 to 1.8 Clone
The CRB is seeking member input on the proposal below. Please provide feedback on crbscca.com.

1. 1990-1993 cars with the 1.6L engine may be updated to 1994-1997 cars (the source vehicle) with the 1.8L engine, provided:

a. Cars updated in this manner shall be re-classified to the model year corresponding to the source vehicle dash VIN plate.

b. A new log book shall be issued using the source vehicle dash VIN along with the source vehicle model year.

c. This updated car must conform to all rules governing the source vehicle’s model year, including, but not limited to updating
the following: complete engine assembly (from airbox to downpipe), ECU, wiring harness (in its entirety), dash including VIN
plate, brakes, and differential.

[LarryKing]

[X] Don't care

[Tom Hampton]

This seems like a no Brainer. Why should I care if someone wants to convert their na6 to am na8?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I dont care personally, but if your going to write this in the rules, then you must do this with the 99-00, 01-05 swap either way someone wants to.  I know it is already being done and has been done, so just make it the rule and be done, but anyone who has a 1.6 shoudl be able to go 1.8 if they want to. as long as they run car in 1.8 trim IMO

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Can someone please explain what kind of advantage this would be ?
Because I must be missing something.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Can someone please explain what kind of advantage this would be ?
Because I must be missing something.

 

For you me or anyone who has a caged chassis in good condition, if you want to build it into another model year rather then starting over its a huge advantage, so what dont you understand?

[Ron Jesberger]

Might as well allow a 99 and up swap and go from there!

[Keith Novak]

So why is this all about placating the current 1.6 drivers?  I understand they're the most vocal.  There are a lot more of them than 1.8 drivers.  Why are there a lot more of them?  Because hardly anyone wants to drive the readheaded stepchild NA 1.8.  Sure it may be good for some tracks but has some serious disadvantages on others.  I don't see a lot of people clammering to build them today.

 

If we're going to allow updating the 1.6 to a 1.8 to get more torque, why not also alow backdating the 1.8 to a 1.6?  Why would someone want to?

• Lighter weight
• Higher rev limiter
• More commonality with other drivers
• More crossover potential

I see 1.6 donors out there all the time for dirt cheap.  I'd seriously consider backdating my own 1.8.  Unless the 1.8 gets some help to make up for the disadvantages it has, I don't think it's a big benefit to the class allowing the 1.6 to swap to to a disadvantaged setup that hardly anyone wants to drive as it is.

[Jason Brassfield]

What would you think about updating/backdating with no regard to the chassis? Meaning you could run a 1.6L powered 1999 at 2275 if you chose, or a VVT powered 1990 at 2450?

 

Maybe spec a chassis weight and an engine weight?

 

1990-1993 chassis 1800 lbs

1.6L engine 475 lbs

 

1999-2000 chassis 1810 lbs

99-00 engine 640 lbs

 

Or whatever weights make sense with more thought.

 

and so on...

 

Probably getting into too many complications and difficulty too be realistic but its an interesting thought anyway.

[Johnny D]

What would you think about updating/backdating with no regard to the chassis? Meaning you could run a 1.6L powered 1999 at 2275 if you chose, or a VVT powered 1990 at 2450?
 
Maybe spec a chassis weight and an engine weight?
 
1990-1993 chassis 1800 lbs
1.6L engine 475 lbs
 
1999-2000 chassis 1810 lbs
99-00 engine 640 lbs
 
Or whatever weights make sense with more thought.
 
and so on...
 
Probably getting into too many complications and difficulty too be realistic but its an interesting thought anyway.

Of course other ideas and suggestions are welcome, as always in the form of a letter at crbscca.com, Reponses here are not official.

 

J~

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

What would you think about updating/backdating with no regard to the chassis? Meaning you could run a 1.6L powered 1999 at 2275 if you chose, or a VVT powered 1990 at 2450?

Maybe spec a chassis weight and an engine weight?

1990-1993 chassis 1800 lbs
1.6L engine 475 lbs

1999-2000 chassis 1810 lbs
99-00 engine 640 lbs

Or whatever weights make sense with more thought.

and so on...

Probably getting into too many complications and difficulty too be realistic but its an interesting thought anyway.

Now were getting somewhere !

[Johnny D]

I can see it now.

Top guys get a full tear down at the runoffs.

 

After, then you don't care who parts are who.

Just grab a few boxes and your good to go.

J~

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

^ lol

[Jim Drago]

I changed my vote to no.. This is opening a can of worms we don't need to go down. If you want a different car.. buy one

[Erik Hardy]

Buying and adapting in a new engine is significantly more affordable than it is to buy/build a new car. The only reason why I would consider replacing my current vehicle is due to the engine performance. If I was able to swap in a different year motor (say 99'), and run the vehicle at 2400lbs I would do it in a heartbeat (This assumes extending the 1.8 clone to engine swaps of all years)

 

 

I changed my vote to no.. This is opening a can of worms we don't need to go down. If you want a different car.. buy one

[38bfast]

creating a frankenstein car is not on the table from the SMAC, I.E. 99 engines in a NA. The 1.8 clone proposal replicates a car that is currently on the spec line in the GCR. 

[Jim Drago]

Buying and adapting in a new engine is significantly more affordable than it is to buy/build a new car. The only reason why I would consider replacing my current vehicle is due to the engine performance. If I was able to swap in a different year motor (say 99'), and run the vehicle at 2400lbs I would do it in a heartbeat (This assumes extending the 1.8 clone to engine swaps of all years)

Which is why I changed my vote and my letter to no. Frankenstein cars that will require umpteen additional changes to make them work properly is not something I would not support. An NA 1.8 into a NA 1.6 is a no brainer, vice versa is a no brainer. That is not the case putting a 99-05 engine into an NA chassis.

[Erik Hardy]

Ok. I can see how that could escalate into a new monster, I'm wrong