166 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

Those are just guidelines for when to tech someone harder, I wouldn't read too deeply into them for parity.

True, but he still makes a good point that IMO no one has answered. Why would a car with less HP be considered equal at the same weight? It should be that the car handles better. But if that is true, then no one would want to swap in a NB suspension and mitigate that advantage.

[Jim Drago]

I can acknowledge that the intended purpose is not to be hard and fast number but they did originate from something (anecdotal, facts, or otherwise) and at the time was noted that the NB1 makes more power than the NA1.8 and now must share the same weight.

unfortunatley, just because NASA says it does not make it so  

 

I think it is fair to say most feel the NA1.8 with no plate will make more Hp than an NB (99 or VVT) slightly less or equal tq

[Jamz14]

unfortunatley, just because NASA says it does not make it so

 

I think it is fair to say most feel the NA1.8 with no plate will make more Hp than an NB (99 or VVT) slightly less or equal tq

So you are thinking that a good 97 without a plate should make 131hp?

[Jim Drago]

So you are thinking that a good 97 without a plate should make 131hp?

I am saying on any given dyno.. a equally built NA1.8 to any NB on same dyno back to back, yes the NA1.8 should be the same or better on Peak Hp and the same or slighlty less on peak tq  That number could be 131 or 105 depending on dyno, which really doesnt matter 

[Johnny D]

If you take these numbers...

http://mazdaracers.c...racing-engines/

 

Haldeman says 3~5 you get more than a NB (assuming more on the 5 side)

 

Get that flow bench testing going.

J~

[Jamz14]

Thank you Jim and Johnny.

[Jamz14]

If you take these numbers...

http://mazdaracers.c...racing-engines/

 

Haldeman says 3~5 you get more than a NB (assuming more on the 5 side)

 

Get that flow bench testing going.

J~

I have a flow bench. I guess I will need to start learning how to use it.

[Bench Racer]

For my 2 cents, pointy end prep the car and put a pointy end driver in the car same day pointy end driver is using his/her 99 plus car. For sure I need to do that to backup my dyno results. If the track test backs up the dyno, then I'm curious if I lucked out with supposed must have flow benched accessories. Because my accessories have not been flow bench tested.  

[chris haldeman]

Lucky does happen. I recently flow tested a pile of 1.6 intakes for a friend. His original was the best. Time well wasted lol

[Diller]

unfortunatley, just because NASA says it does not make it so

 

I think it is fair to say most feel the NA1.8 with no plate will make more Hp than an NB (99 or VVT) slightly less or equal tq

 

Very important word there ;-)

 

I'm just poking at the logic used and how we came to the conclusion of "Yep, this must make the cars equal".

 

Since this isn't IMSA and we don't really have a good test bed (enough money or time) to trial top flight NA1.6, NA1.8, NB1, NB2 with minimal variables. I would suggest something that has been implied at some point in this thread. Only change one thing at a time please!

 

It would be interesting to see how many NA1.8 cars are running and where we can really pull data from. In the Southeast (not counting Florida). I have been the only one at every SCCA and NASA races I attend.

 

I admit that I may have stated prematurely that no plate and 2375 would be the "sweet spot" but it will be interesting to see if we can agree on a logic base to guide the next step. I was just excited with the no plate thinking it would make a huge change in power.

[Brandon]

So you are thinking that a good 97 without a plate should make 131hp?

 

Per my builder's dyno (DynaPack) and without being tuned, my NA8 and no plate was nearly a 4HP increase (127 --> 131HP) putting it "well ahead" of his best '99 (I think was 127-128).

 

IOW, my NA8 was making the most power he's ever made on a "current rules" build for that model, without tuning and performing any further parts binning of manifolds.

 

Now whether the rules committee wants to pursue what has been asserted to be a "Frankencar" with respect to permitting alternative subframes or heads or complete powertrain swaps, that's up to the membership to write letters supported by data.

 

I'm looking forward to running this year with these settings and submitting what I gather as part of my own letter submissions to bring these cars closer to "identical spec" from nose to tail absent aerodynamics.

Edited by Brandon, 03-01-2017 11:25 AM.

[Tom Sager]

It's time to start the Spec NA1.8 class.  47mm, 2350, Toyo tires, $20K claiming rule.  It'll be yuuuuge!

[Jamz14]

Per my builder's dyno (DynaPack) and without being tuned, my NA8 and no plate was nearly a 4HP increase (127 --> 131HP) putting it "well ahead" of his best '99 (I think was 127-128).

 

IOW, my NA8 was making the most power he's ever made on a "current rules" build for that model, without tuning and performing any further parts binning of manifolds.

 

I'm looking forward to running this year with these settings and submitting what I gather as part of my own letter submissions to bring these cars closer to "identical spec" from nose to tail absent aerodynamics.

That would indeed make it the best NA 1.8 in the country and maybe the best SM. Can't wait to see you on the podium with it. With those numbers there is absolutely no reason to reduce the weight to 2375. Preliminary speaking, what in the world more do you want or think you need to get that car closer to "identical spec"? More weight?

[Diller]

If 131hp was the norm, the weight may make sense however I think that 131 is a unicorn. 

 

I hate comparing dyno numbers though unless back to back to back. My dyno run in January on a 100% humidity rainy day in Georgia isn't going to compare to one in California. Even with all the calculated corrections.

[Jamz14]

If 131hp was the norm, the weight may make sense however I think that 131 is a unicorn. 

 

I hate comparing dyno numbers though unless back to back to back. My dyno run in January on a 100% humidity rainy day in Georgia isn't going to compare to one in California. Even with all the calculated corrections.

I get your point and agree. In light of that, how should one view dyno numbers from engine builders selling motors? Sounds like I could never validate those claims. Not only that, not sure how they could be confirmed as these are chassis dyno numbers. The motors would need to be swapped into the same chassis to validate. Unless of course the builders are posting engine dyno numbers. In that case Brandons 131 would be a unicorn.

[Brandon]

Guys - DynaPack; and comparing my numbers with anyone else's outside of my builder's is futile.

 

I'm not claiming to have a unicorn or anything else, just relating what the plots he gave me of my own (both with & w/o plate) and how they compared to what he's been able to produce with '99s.

The '99s he builds are regularly 126-128 on his dyno and mine came in at 127 (in 2015) and as a test, while I was on the SMAC**, he did some runs w/o the plate (+4).

 

As I said, I will be gathering my data, putting together some letters, and submitting them for consideration with respect to this latest change (whether in favor or not - it's unclear at this point).

 

** this was while we were discussing/finalizing the 1.6 changes and whether there was any support for doing something for the NA8 at the same time.

[Brandon]

That would indeed make it the best NA 1.8 in the country and maybe the best SM. Can't wait to see you on the podium with it. With those numbers there is absolutely no reason to reduce the weight to 2375. Preliminary speaking, what in the world more do you want or think you need to get that car closer to "identical spec"? More weight?

 

"Identical spec" == everyone running as close to identical hardware as possible minus aerodynamic differences.

 

Permit the 90-93 to update to all NB1 running gear (subframes, rear uprights, engine, differential, brakes, dash) + 38mm plate.

Permit the 94-97 to update to all NB1 running gear (subframes, rear uprights, engine) + 38mm plate.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there's not a performance difference in the 1.8 blocks to require a full engine swap so allowing the 94-97 to merely drop on a NB1 head + manifolds in lieu of the full engine would be the only variation.

 

It essentially is moving things in that way with the suggestion of NA8 w/o plate and the WDYT posted a month or so ago about the subframes/uprights.

[Jamz14]

Why would you change anything on your car Brandon? I think you have the best running gear in the country for a 96. Especially as it hasn't been optimized or tuned in any way.

[Bench Racer]

"Identical spec" == everyone running as close to identical hardware as possible minus aerodynamic differences.

 

Permit the 90-93 to update to all NB1 running gear (subframes, rear uprights, engine, differential, brakes, dash) + 38mm plate.

Permit the 94-97 to update to all NB1 running gear (subframes, rear uprights, engine) + 38mm plate.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there's not a performance difference in the 1.8 blocks to require a full engine swap so allowing the 94-97 to merely drop on a NB1 head + manifolds in lieu of the full engine would be the only variation.

 

It essentially is moving things in that way with the suggestion of NA8 w/o plate and the WDYT posted a month or so ago about the subframes/uprights.

 

Thank You For Your Input!!!

[Diller]

I get your point and agree. In light of that, how should one view dyno numbers from engine builders selling motors? Sounds like I could never validate those claims. Not only that, not sure how they could be confirmed as these are chassis dyno numbers. The motors would need to be swapped into the same chassis to validate. Unless of course the builders are posting engine dyno numbers. In that case Brandons 131 would be a unicorn.

 

 

You can't validate them. A shady engine builder could enter in a manual correction factor, not tell you, and say peak HP is 140. Knowing the limitations of the measuring tools allows you to have an informed conversation with your builder/tuner on what is actually going on with the engine. 

 

I think we are all in agreement here that the dyno numbers from one to the other isn't something we should get caught up in. 

 

I don't have the tools or data to make a case for changes (yet), but I can question the logic used to get to where we are and how to move forward.