818 and SCCA Solo; The EM Killer

[Rasmus]

Autocross or in SCCA-land "Solo". Cone dodging.

I read through the 2012 SCCA Solo rulebook (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2012+SCCA+Solo+Rulebook+.pdf) and it looks like E Modified would be the best fit for classing for the 818. The Modified section (Page 140) specifically allows Kit Cars.


18.1 MODIFIED PRODUCTION-BASED CARS
A. Eligibility
Classes DM and EM contain production-based cars which are per-
mitted additional modifications beyond those allowed in Prepared
classes CP through GP. Models must meet the requirements of Sec-
tion 13 (first paragraph), be specifically listed in Appendix A, meet the
specifications below, or be otherwise recognized by the SEB.
1. Kit Cars
Kit cars, which were originally designed, constructed, and licens-
able for street use, may participate in DM and EM if they are ap-
proved by the SEB. Members desiring approval of a particular kit
car should provide the SEB with detailed information regarding
the kit model and contact info, if available, for the OE manufactur-
er. For obsolete kit cars, the member will be expected to provide
construction specifications, dimensions, and photographs for the
SEB to examine and keep on file. The SCCA® will evaluate each
submitted kit model individually, and the evaluation will ensure
that the specific model:
a. Follows current DM and EM allowances regarding minimum
floor pan dimensions (see 18.1.B.1.j).
b. Has no unusually advantageous aerodynamic features.
c. Has no exceptionally low center of gravity.
d. Has no exceptionally high strength to weight ratio.
e. Has no other unique features that would upset the competitive
balance in DM and EM.
f. Has independently-verifiable evidence of at least 10 examples
which meet the approved specification produced. Extremely
limited production sports racer-type efforts are discouraged.
Constructed examples of approved kits are subject to the follow-
ing:
a. They will automatically take the Modified Tub weight penalty
(see Appendix A).
b. They will have the same weight/displacement scales and
weight bias penalties as production-based cars.
c. They will be allowed all the modifications that production-
based cars are permitted,
d. They are subject to the same engine/transmission restrictions
as production-based cars.
e. They must meet the same safety requirements as production-
based cars.

The Minimum Weight for EM for an engine displacing < 3200 cc Naturally Aspirated. or <2,285.7 cc Forced Induction (2285.7*1.4=3199) is 1750lb. That's 1700 lb plus the Modified Tub addition of 50lb. I assumed anyone that prepared their chassis for EM wouldn't take the 50lb reduction in minimum weight by having the RWD wheels have <51% of the total vehicle weight on them and would opt for 40%/60% distribution.


All listed weights are with driver except where noted otherwise.

Weight (with driver)
Page 229 and 231 respectively.

I think the only thing standing in your way would be Jeff Kiesel in his 1801 lb Turbo Rotary Powered Monster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSBe3OuhVIA#t=72s
Car was running E85 with mid boost and making around 350hp to the wheels and weighs 1810 with driver. He runs Goodyear Formula Atlantic R160 tires.....

[Leonard]

I was looking at weights and displacements last week and it would be a good fit in XP as well.

[Jeff Kleiner]

Here is an earlier conversation you might find interesting:


http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?2794-The-competition-(when-dodging-cones)&highlight=prepared


Jeff

[Exidous]

I currently run EM or used too at least on Oahu and it's one of the hardest classes to compete in. (couldn't afford to get into the racing slick world) The 818 would definitely be a killer if one can get it to hook up.

[Leonard]

Here is an earlier conversation you might find interesting:


http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?2794-The-competition-(when-dodging-cones)&highlight=prepared


Jeff

Yeah. I have read that thread. My guess is that 1700lb with driver in EM is going to be tough to reach. I think you'll be able to get close enough to do well at regional events. It may do ok at national tour events, but I think at nationals it won't place well. XP is a totally different story. The rules put the minimum weight right at 1800 lb with the 2.0L turbo motor. It's really a very nice fit so long as the SEB can be convinced that it won't be a 'class killer'. I think you could make a strong case that it will not be a 'class killer' though as there are existing cars in the same power range at minimum weight that are VERY well developed.

[Rasmus]

The minimum weight in EM would be 1750 lb with driver unless you put less than 51% over the drive wheels.
This means that to meet weight the 818 will need to loose ~250 lb, assuming a 200lb driver.

The lowest hanging fruit would be the OEM seats weighing in at 45 lb each. Which you could drop for a Kirkey Aluminium job at 11 lb. Savings of 79 lb.

8486
The OEM headers are cast iron 25lb units and could be swapped for a two piece Stainless unit already available from the after market about 8lb. Savings of 17lb.

Next would be the stock steering wheel and it's air bag.

Then the OEM brakes for a lightweight Wilwood setup. This would be dolla dolla bills though. :(

[Xusia]

1750 is MINIMUM weight, right? So 2000 lbs with driver would be OK as far as the rules go? IF someone wanted to do that...

[Rasmus]

1750 is minimum. If you want to exceed that you may. Many national guys try to exceed the mimimum by 5lb or so. If you do win, you don't want to be DQ'd because you were 1748. Say you forgot to calc for the loss of fuel and how much you sweat.

[apexanimal]

just means you can eat another cheeseburger, fries, etc... ;)

[Rasmus]

The Minimum Weight for EM for an engine displacing < 3200 cc Naturally Aspirated. or <2,285.7 cc Forced Induction (2285.7*1.4=3199) is 1750lb. That's 1700 lb plus the Modified Tub addition of 50lb. I assumed anyone that prepared their chassis for EM wouldn't take the 50lb reduction in minimum weight by having the RWD wheels have <51% of the total vehicle weight on them and would opt for 40%/60% distribution.

More notes for myself than anything, attempts to make the engine legal and maximize displacement.



+
Bore
Stroke
mm^3


EJ205
92.0
75.0
1994.3


EJ22T
96.9
75.0
2212.4


EJ25x
99.5
79.0
2457.1 :(


Hybrid
99.5
75.0
2332.7 :(


EJ22T Wiseco .020 Overbore PN-K601M975
97.5
75.0
2239.9


EJ22T Wiseco .040 Overbore PN-K601M98
98.0
75.0
2262.9


De-stroke, EJ25x Piston
99.5
73.4
2282.9


De-stroke, EJ25x oversize Piston
100.0
72.7
2283.9


Custom Piston/Stock Stroke
98.4
75.0
2281.4


4" Piston/Custom Stroke
101.6
70.4
2283.0


Ridiculous
103
68.5
2283.0

[JRach]

Another good option is stroking the EJ205 using the factory 79mm crank= 2.12 liters
If you want to get really fancy you can go with custom sleeves/pistons (easier than a custom crank) and a go with some 95.75mm pistons w/ the 79mm crank to be right at 2.28 :)

IMO- stroking the ej205 or using an NA 2.2 block (since the ej22t blocks are hard to source, and the closed deck design is really only necessary with some really big power) then going with turbo style crank/pistons/rods to match the 2.2t displacment has been done many times before and can be done with off the shelf parts. Keeping in mind you'll want heads that can handle the flow as well as the combustion chambers matched to the bore size.

I think the proper size and configuration of your turbo set up (low mount twin scroll!) will be far more effective at getting a broad power band than messing around with the configuration of the shortblock. :D


More notes for myself than anything, attempts to make the engine legal and maximize displacement.



+
Bore
Stroke
mm^3


EJ205
92.0
75.0
1994.3


EJ22T
96.9
75.0
2212.4


EJ25x
99.5
79.0
2457.1 :(


Hybrid
99.5
75.0
2332.7 :(


De-stroke
100.0
72.7
2283.9


Custom Piston
98.4
75.0
2281.4


Ridiculous
103
68.5
2283.0

[Rasmus]

I'm not a fan of longer strokes. Given that we only have a limited displacement to work with I'd want large bores and short strokes. Course there's always the budget issue. The more custom the more it costs and the costlier it is to get replacements. Plus custom gaskets and custom bearings get to be "dolla dolla bills, yo"!

Why large bores/short strokes? First you can run longer rods. Then with the shorter stroke/longer rod, the Pistons will see less g's and piston speeds will slow down. So the RPM limit can rise or the bearings will see less stress at the same RPM. The cylinders can fill easier on the intake stroke which, hypothetically, moves the torque curve to the right.

[Rasmus]

Thoughts for transmission choices. Assuming 255/40R17 wheels and a 7250 rpm limit.

Legacy 2010+ 6 speed in the 5mt case.
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 35
2nd: 1.947 --------- 62
3rd: 1.296 --------- 93
4th: 0.972 --------- 125
5th: 0.825 --------- 147
6th: 0.695 --------- 175
Final: 4.444:1

Legacy GT 2005 -2007
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.166 --------- 41
2nd: 1.882 --------- 70
3rd: 1.296 --------- 101
4th: 0.972 --------- 135
5th: 0.738 --------- 178
Final: 4.111:1

Outback XT 2005 -2009
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.166 --------- 38
2nd: 1.882 --------- 65
3rd: 1.296 --------- 94
4th: 0.972 --------- 125
5th: 0.738 --------- 165
Final: 4.444:1

WRX 2006
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 42
2nd: 1.947 --------- 75
3rd: 1.366 --------- 107
4th: 0.972 --------- 150
5th: 0.738 --------- 198
Final: 3.700:1

WRX 2006 w/ 4.111 final drive
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 38
2nd: 1.947 --------- 67
3rd: 1.366 --------- 96
4th: 0.972 --------- 135
5th: 0.738 --------- 178
Final: 4.111:1

WRX 2006 w/ 4.444 final drive
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 35
2nd: 1.947 --------- 62
3rd: 1.366 --------- 89
4th: 0.972 --------- 125
5th: 0.738 --------- 165
Final: 4.444:1

'96-'99 USDM Legacy Outback
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.545 --------- 38
2nd: 2.111 --------- 64
3rd: 1.448 --------- 93
4th: 1.088 --------- 124
5th: 0.871 --------- 155
Final: 4.111:1

'96-'99 USDM Legacy Outback w/ 4.444 final drive
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.545 --------- 34
2nd: 2.111 --------- 58
3rd: 1.448 --------- 84
4th: 1.088 --------- 112
5th: 0.871 --------- 140
Final: 4.444:1

'02-'05 USDM WRX
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 40
2nd: 1.947 --------- 71
3rd: 1.366 --------- 101
4th: 0.972 --------- 142
5th: 0.738 --------- 188
Final: 3.900:1

'94-'95 JDM Impreza WRX RA/STi RA
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 38
2nd: 2.333 --------- 56
3rd: 1.750 --------- 75
4th: 1.354 --------- 97
5th: 0.972 --------- 135
Final: 4.111:1

[Xusia]

Awesome info. What about a 2002-2005 WRX with the 2.0L? So far it looks to me like the regular 2006 WRX transmission provides the best ratios. I say that because I think in a car this light, taller gearing will be an advantage. The shorter the gearing the more risk of wheel spin...

[bstuke]

I think the only thing standing in your way would be Jeff Kiesel in his 1801 lb Turbo Rotary Powered Monster

And a whole bunch of other people..

[Jeff Kleiner]

And a whole bunch of other people..

Yup ;)

Jeff

[Slatt]

Thoughts for transmission choices. Assuming 255/40R17 wheels and a 7250 rpm limit.

Legacy 2010+ 6 speed in the 5mt case.
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 35
2nd: 1.947 --------- 62
3rd: 1.296 --------- 93
4th: 0.972 --------- 125
5th: 0.825 --------- 147
6th: 0.695 --------- 175
Final: 4.444:1

Legacy GT 2005 -2007
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.166 --------- 41
2nd: 1.882 --------- 70
3rd: 1.296 --------- 101
4th: 0.972 --------- 135
5th: 0.738 --------- 178
Final: 4.111:1

Outback XT 2005 -2009
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.166 --------- 38
2nd: 1.882 --------- 65
3rd: 1.296 --------- 94
4th: 0.972 --------- 125
5th: 0.738 --------- 165
Final: 4.444:1

WRX 2006
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 42
2nd: 1.947 --------- 75
3rd: 1.366 --------- 107
4th: 0.972 --------- 150
5th: 0.738 --------- 198
Final: 3.700:1

WRX 2006 w/ 4.111 final drive
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 38
2nd: 1.947 --------- 67
3rd: 1.366 --------- 96
4th: 0.972 --------- 135
5th: 0.738 --------- 178
Final: 4.111:1

WRX 2006 w/ 4.444 final drive
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 35
2nd: 1.947 --------- 62
3rd: 1.366 --------- 89
4th: 0.972 --------- 125
5th: 0.738 --------- 165
Final: 4.444:1

'96-'99 USDM Legacy Outback
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.545 --------- 38
2nd: 2.111 --------- 64
3rd: 1.448 --------- 93
4th: 1.088 --------- 124
5th: 0.871 --------- 155
Final: 4.111:1

'96-'99 USDM Legacy Outback w/ 4.444 final drive
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.545 --------- 34
2nd: 2.111 --------- 58
3rd: 1.448 --------- 84
4th: 1.088 --------- 112
5th: 0.871 --------- 140
Final: 4.444:1

'02-'05 USDM WRX
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 40
2nd: 1.947 --------- 71
3rd: 1.366 --------- 101
4th: 0.972 --------- 142
5th: 0.738 --------- 188
Final: 3.900:1

'94-'95 JDM Impreza WRX RA/STi RA
Gear Ratio -------- Top speed (mph)
1st: 3.454 --------- 38
2nd: 2.333 --------- 56
3rd: 1.750 --------- 75
4th: 1.354 --------- 97
5th: 0.972 --------- 135
Final: 4.111:1

Your numbers and my numbers aren't quite matching. Please say whether you used the tire "diameter" or the tire "static load radius", or some other value. Thx. We can expect an error of 8% or so between the two.

[Rasmus]

Your numbers and my numbers aren't quite matching. Please say whether you used the tire "diameter" or the tire "static load radius", or some other value. Thx. We can expect an error of 8% or so between the two.
Diameter.

I plugged my numbers into one of those free internet gear calculators (http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html). How far off am I compared to your numbers? And would you post your numbers for the WRX 2006 Tranny?

[metalmaker12]

This is going to be nuts, my redline will be like 8500-8600 on my ej207. That will put me over 200mph top end with the 02 5spd. Like 50 in first

[Slatt]

Diameter.

I plugged my numbers into one of those free internet gear calculators (http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html). How far off am I compared to your numbers? And would you post your numbers for the WRX 2006 Tranny?

I asked Rallispec.com for permission to use their gearbox data (http://www.rallispec.com/prod_trans.htm) and Dave said yup and even included this list of Subaru transmissions. RalliSpec Transmission ID Chart (http://home.gci.net/~cowdookey/818/TransmissionIDChart_Public.pdf). These guys have useful stuff on their website and I've been very happy buying from them. But Dave warned me their website will be relocating/changing in a month or two.

That list says a 2006 WRX final ratio is 3.7, but I always thought it was 3.6??

Now, on to the gear ratios. I'm sure your numbers and mine were the same up until choosing the tire radius. It just makes good sense to me to use the "Static Load Radius" #s that each manufacturer usually provides, instead of the "diameter" or "circumference" on their data sheets. What I still wonder about is what weight they use when measuring that (Max Load?) and also how much tire expansion we can expect at high speeds. I found one of those buried-who-knows-if-you-can-trust-it statements that a tire's radius can grow from 44% of diameter stopped to 48% at 45MPH.

Anyway, I tweaked the rallispec gear ratios spreadsheet by adding three new easily edited "cars" at the bottom and made charts. The charts are worth, oh, maybe 750 words each. :) Tweaked RalliSpec Gear Ratios. (http://home.gci.net/~cowdookey/818/GearChart.xlsx)

[RM1SepEx]

This is going to be nuts, my redline will be like 8500-8600 on my ej207. That will put me over 200mph top end with the 02 5spd. Like 50 in first

unless you do a real serious build it will not hit redline in top gear, geared much too high to get rpm down and gas mileage up

[Xusia]

As RM1SepEX stated, that's the maximum speed based on gearing. A 300 HP engine is not going have enough power to actually achieve that. You'd probably need over 500 WHP to actually go 200 MPH in an 818. With 300 WHP the 818 could probably hit 155 - 165 MPH. Of course, that's this is all just a rough guess at this point.

[Rasmus]

Perhaps we could create a separate thread to discuss top speeds, gearing, horsepower, and aerodynamic restrictions to top speed. This thread's supposed to be about E Modified class for Solo. :cool:

[flynntuna]

+1 both are good subjects worthy of their own threads.

[bstuke]

Just to point out something that might have been overlooked:

All unclassified cars will compete in Super Stock until classified by the
SEB, unless covered by a “catch-all” description. To use the catch-alls
at the end of the specific car classes in Appendix A, start from Super
Stock and work down the classes until a class is found. Such
unclassified cars will not be eligible for Divisionals, Tours, or the
National Championships. Members should look for a Tech Bulletin in
an early current-year issue of the official SCCA publication (Fastrack
News) for details or contact the National office.

[Grintch]

Just to point out something that might have been overlooked:

All unclassified cars will compete in Super Stock until classified by the
SEB, unless covered by a “catch-all” description. To use the catch-alls
at the end of the specific car classes in Appendix A, start from Super
Stock and work down the classes until a class is found. Such
unclassified cars will not be eligible for Divisionals, Tours, or the
National Championships. Members should look for a Tech Bulletin in
an early current-year issue of the official SCCA publication (Fastrack
News) for details or contact the National office.

This is completely wrong.

13. STOCK CATEGORY
Cars running in Stock Category must have been series produced with
normal road touring equipment capable of being licensed for normal
road use in the United States, and normally sold and delivered through
the manufacturer’s retail sales outlets in the United States. Car models
not specifically listed in any Stock Category class must have been produced,
and must meet the above requirements and been sold through
normal U.S. dealerships, in quantities of at least 1,000 in a 12-month
period in order to be eligible for the Stock Category. A Canadian-market
vehicle is eligible for Stock category if it is identical to the US-market
counterpart except for comfort and convenience modifications as allowed
per 13.2.A.

If not classified, the 818 would go into AM or BM.

18.4 SPECIALS
Cars not otherwise classified which meet the following minimum specifications
are considered as Specials and are assigned to A Modified
(AM).

18.2 SPORTS RACERS
Any dune buggy, production, or non-production street car meeting all
GCR SRCS rule requirements may alternately run in BM with full BM
Solo Rules aero allowances.

[bstuke]

Super Stock category, not Stock category.

[RM1SepEx]

Grintch is correct...

Super stiock is a stock class... a kit car does not fit in ANY stock class as described above

[bstuke]

Understood,

But that was what I was kinda getting at. Catchall for Modified is AM. Not sure I want to be classed their either.

If you read through all the "Modified" rules, you will see mention of "kit cars" Dave Smith doesn't particularly care for that term, but the 818 is a kit car.

So knowing some of the guys that are on the SEB, one local to me and a good friend, EM is going to be the most likely scenario. The SEB is asking for a little more info before they make a determination. Some of us are heavy duty Solo guys, so bolting weight on a car is not such a terrible thing to do to make weight. A buddy of mine that is a multiple national champion run an Civic in EP, and he is always changing weights between him and his wife.

I would much rather bolt on some weight in the place of a passenger seat for sure..

[Rasmus]

If you read through all the "Modified" rules, you will see mention of "kit cars" Dave Smith doesn't particularly care for that term, but the 818 is a kit car.

So knowing some of the guys that are on the SEB, one local to me and a good friend, EM is going to be the most likely scenario.

I understand why Dave Smith might dislike the term "Kit Car". The 70's and 80's kit cars were rough. But you're correct, for the purposes of SCCA Solo Rules the 818 is a Kit Car. FFR's marketing and branding be damned.

In my reading of the rules, E Modified is the best fit for an 818. We'll see what the SEB decides (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?8134-Submitted-a-request-the-the-SCCA-SEB-to-class-the-818-for-Solo).

[RM1SepEx]

I understand why Dave Smith might dislike the term "Kit Car". The 70's and 80's kit cars were rough. But you're correct, for the purposes of SCCA Solo Rules the 818 is a Kit Car. FFR's marketing and branding be damned.

In my reading of the rules, E Modified is the best fit for an 818. We'll see what the SEB decides (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showthread.php?8134-Submitted-a-request-the-the-SCCA-SEB-to-class-the-818-for-Solo).

mega dittos... that's where I'll run it in our independant club...