CNAC classification request

[Marsh]

I know I'm going to forget later, so I'm doing it here.

The following cars need to be classified under the CNAC rules (keep responding and adding to the list)

Mazda MX-3 Percidia (no SS or SP class listed. I'm putting it in DSS/SP with the MX-6 V6 and turbo. The stock class is HS, for 4cyl and V6)

[Cliffy]

What's the displacement of both the 4cyl and V6?

I'll get a clarification for y'all.

-c.

[Marsh]

V6 is a 1.8L, I don't know about the 4.

[Cliffy]

Doug Gill of SCCA Technical just messaged me back:

V6 (1.8L) goes into DSP "All V6 ... under 3.0L NOC"

4 cyl (1.6L) goes into FSP "All ...under 1.7L"

CNAC places them in the DSS/SP and FSS/SP respectively. My inquiry will be forwarded for a proper listing in the 2004 SCCA listings.

-c.

[Logan]

How is the echo hatchback going to be classed?
Same as the echo sedan?

[Cliffy]

Originally posted by Logan
How is the echo hatchback going to be classed?
Same as the echo sedan?

Since the 2004 car is not available in the U.S., SCCA won't have a clue on it. On paper it looks like the new generation Echo is about the same power to weight wise as the 89 Civic Si. I haven't test driven one so I can't begin to guess where it goes but let's say H Stock for now.

Maybe some of you 4th gen. Civic owners can pop by a local Toyota dealership and compared the car to yours.

-c.

[Dave]

in terms of suspension design, the Echo hatchback has nothing in common with the 4th gen Civic. The Echo hatch has MacPherson front struts and torsion beam rear (solid rear axle!), while the 4g Civic has double wishbone design at all four corners (the advantages of which are well documented). The 4g Civic also has a 5'' longer wheelbase (98.4'' vs 93.3'') and 1-2'' wider track (57.1/57.3 for the Civic and 56.9/55.9 for the Echo). And of course the Echo will certainly have a significantly higher roll center.

All that to say, the 4g Civic is undoubtedly a much better handling car than the Echo Hatchback. But I do like the look of the Echo hatch, in a cute futuristic sort of way :) Too bad the rear suspension ain't so futuristic.

A more accurate comparison car for the new Echo might be the Toyota Tercel, which shares the same suspension design front and back.

Cheers,
Dave

[rpr]

Sounds like a 3G Civic to me.

[Logan]

I believe Simon (7plymaple) tested one in comparison to his 3rd gen protege (B3 car old rules) and feels it's a superior car to that.
Hopefully he'll check in here and give us his opinion.

[miataboi]

Originally posted by Logan
I believe Simon (7plymaple) tested one in comparison to his 3rd gen protege (B3 car old rules) and feels it's a superior car to that.
Hopefully he'll check in here and give us his opinion.

I don't know that suspension design is always a major factor in determining car classing...

MAYBE for scca... but not the other rule sets that I have seen or been involved with setting up...

It's usually...

Drive wheel setup
displacement
power:weight
factory trim-level

Suspension design doesn't always seem to affect class...
It WILL affect how it performs, obviously.

And a car that's 2/3 or your current vehicle... will almost ALWAYS fell more nimble... particularly with a smaller wheelbase...

But it may or may not be faster!

I almost shudder... to think about the poor bastard who puts sticky race tires on a stock echo hatch... SEEMS like there is some inversion / motorcycling potential!
:eek:

[Martini Focus]

Rather than starting another thread I'll just add my question to this one.

Is there any difference between shorty an Race headers from a points stand point??

Also does removing the factory cat and replacing it with an aftermarket in a different position make a points difference.

Thanks.

Reading the post above about an Echo with slicks, if you put a set of R's on a stock Focus Hatch and drive it aggressively you run a HUGE risk of tipping over. It happened at two national events and a host of others in the US last year.

[AlienDNA]

Originally posted by Martini Focus
Is there any difference between shorty an Race headers from a points stand point??



5.8.E.2 - Tubular headers or exhaust manifold other than OEM - 2pts.

Go nuts.:)

[Gord]

I looked at the rules and I think there needs to be some clarification for VW diesels in SS/SP classes.

Currently they all start out in HS (which is fine), but there is nothing explicit for where they proceed. Depending on how the classes are interpreted, some could go to F or some could go to D, and it changes depending on how you want to look at the classes.

Realistically, none of the VW diesels currently available in north america should be in DSS/SP. F makes sense since that is where the other 8v gassers go.

Is it possible to get a clarification in the FSS/SP class to list the diesels?

Thanks,

-Gord

[miataboi]

Originally posted by Gord

Realistically, none of the VW diesels currently available in north america should be in DSS/SP. F makes sense since that is where the other 8v gassers go.


Why do you think that is...???
Based on what? :confused:

[Gord]

Originally posted by miataboi
Why do you think that is...???
Based on what? :confused:

Well, let's look at the numbers. Currently the VW's shown in D are basically the 16v's (older), the VR6's, and the 1.8t's. The turbos go from 150 to 180 hp in stock form these days. VR's make more power (but are a bit heavier), and the 16v's have the advantage of being in much lower weight vehicles.

The VW diesels range from 48 hp (old, non-turbo), to the new for 2004 100 hp PD-TDI's. If you look at the current MK4 VW's and compare a Jetta TDI to a Jetta 1.8t, you have basically the same car (weight, handling, etc), but the gasser has *DOUBLE* the power out of the box (90 vs. 180).

Now, put the TDI with 2.slow 8v (115 hp) and things even out quite a bit. The TDI has more torque, but the 8v has the weight advantage. The smaller 8v's and the older diesels compare pretty well to each other as well.

So, since the 8v's seem to live in F, that seems like an appropriate home for the diesels as well.

Make sense? :)

-Gord

[Gord]

Ok, I've just gone back and looked at the CNAC classes again, and something smells funny with the MK4 2.slow's as well.

Someone correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but they fall under CSS/SP ("Sedans between 1.7 and 3.0L NOC")?? I don't see them under F (seems to be up to MK3 only) or D (V6 under 3L and 4cyl turbo NOC).

F again makes sense (8v's up to MK3 are there), especially considering the weight of the MK4's, but C with Type-R's and M3's??

-Gord

[MitS]

You make good points Gord. There's no way you should be in DSS/SP with the oil burner. Maybe if you had the European TDI 150.

BTW, were you the guy driving the gold Passat at one the WOSCA summer events? I think I saw a letter of yours in GRM a few months ago.

[Gord]

Yep, that's me. The Passat is my other solo car. Joe is just soooo cool in that family hauler, I'm gonna copy cat him to fame!:cool:

I got to run it once more this year before my summer went to hell, but this time on some old RA-1's. Those 1.8t's are crazy fast (when you come from a TDI)! Many a sports car owner was living in fear of the family hauler that day I tell ya. Joe is really onto something here folks.:cool:

On the classing subject again, I think I found a few others that seem wierd:

-Acura 2.5tl, 2.2/2.3cl, TSX
-Honda Accord V6
-Infiniti G20

These seem to land in strange classes (IMHO) from what I read.

Anyone?

-Gord

[Gord]

Wow, the more I look, the more I find...

-VW Passat VR6 = DSS/SP, ok
-VW Passat (NOC) = FSS/SP, I think that's a little broad

That puts the diesels, 16v, 1.8t, 30v 2.8 V6, and W8 all in F. I would guess at diesels and 16v in F, and V6 in D. The W8 and 1.8t are a little tougher.

W8 seems like too much for D and not enough for C. E would appear to be the best home with "like" cars (5 series, big Benz's, Audi's, etc.).

The 1.8t is a tough call. Since the Passat is like a Camry/Accord/etc and they have their "base" models (4cyl) in F, it seems like a good home. But the 1.8t is almost as good as the V6 (although no V6 owner would ever admit to that).

Opinions?

The later model Audi's seem to be non-classed (all them seem to be lumped into C). It would make sense to have at least the A4 be with the 3 series and IS300, IMHO. But should they be divided like the Passat?

-Gord

[Cliffy]

Guys,

Can you send me a list of all the cars you'd like to have a RFC (request for classification) done on? In the past couple years, SCCA has skipped a lot of cars/models when they revamped their stock and SP class listings.

I'll try and forward this list to the SEB (solo Events Board) and see if they can make hte appropriate changes for 2004.

thanks,
-c.

[Gord]

Thanks Cliff!

Everyone, can you all have a look at the classifications for cars you are familiar with to see if there is anything that should be clarified. A lot of the problems I see are with the sweeping generalizations (ex. all NOC) and catch-all's that are used.

A few more I can see are:

-late model Maxima's/Altima's -- the 4cyl Altima ends up in C, and the 3.5 v6 is questionable too

-Subaru Legacy 4 and 6 -- the 4 is currently in C, and the 6 could be C or E depending on the exact displacement

Thanks,

-Gord

[JoeT]

Originally posted by Gord
Thanks Cliff!

-Subaru Legacy 4 and 6 -- the 4 is currently in C, and the 6 could be C or E depending on the exact displacement

Thanks,

-Gord

Hi Gord,

Where did you see the Legacy in C class. In the document below it's listed as H in stock form. It's on Page 8.. Also, just as and FYI, the H-6 ( 6 Cyl) is only available in the Outback models, including the Outback Sedan and only in Automatic.

http://66.46.236.210/pdfs/cnac/cnac2003appendixA.pdf

[Gord]

Hi Joe,

I should have been more clear. I was looking at the progression of the cars up into SS/SP. H is where the Legacy starts, and that sounds like a good placement.

However, when it goes on to SS/SP preparation, it isn't listed anywhere. The only ones that are included the Impreza 2.2/2.5/NOC and the old 4wd turbo models. It then falls under one of the catch-all's, and from what I read, the Legacy w/2.5 H4 would land in CSS/SP ("All sedans over 1.7 < 3.0 NOC").

To me, that seems wrong. The 2.5 in the Legacy is sort of their "base" engine isn't it? FSS/SP seems to be the home for more prepared low power econo-cars and pedestrian family haulers. To me that sounds like where the Legacy would go (logically).

Now with the Outback models, I don't know where makes sense. In some ways again, F is logical.

What do you think?

-Gord

[JoeT]

I have no idea... It's all greek to me. Yes F seems to be the most logical, and that's where my current car is classified into, but I'm not sure.

It would be great if someone could actually clear it up.

But, FSP sounds logical.

[pete@wheelandti]

If you look at the current MK4 VW's and compare a Jetta TDI to a Jetta 1.8t, you have basically the same car (weight, handling, etc), but the gasser has *DOUBLE* the power out of the box (90 vs. 180).

BUT, TDi's do have a lot of torque. Once you do a couple of simple mods, 250-300 ft/lbs of torque is available.

This is just my $.02 worth, and I am not going to say that diesels are fast, but once modified, they can become quite quick. VW has both raced in Touring Cars with some TDi's, and Rallied a 4-Motion TDi in the last couple of years. Both with good success.

These things can get quick, once you mod them. In stock form, no faster than a 2L, 8V.

[Gord]

The grass is always greener on the other side of the pond. Well in this case it is; they get some really nice stuff that we will never see. If it was a PD-150, then yes, it's more than a match for a 1.8t. But for what we get here, it's like comparing a Japanese Civic Type-R to a North American Civic Lx (or more appropriately Hx :)).

I have actually driven one with a "few simple mods", and the difference over stock is quite noticable. I can't really say if it is any faster than my stock 1.8t... it didn't have the rush of power as the boost comes on, so it's hard to say if it is faster. I'm told they do low 16's QM in this trim.

A turbo/supercharged 8v (would fit into FSS/SP) would have to be pretty quick as well, and you have to compare modded to modded.

-Gord

[MitS]

Originally posted by Gord
The grass is always greener on the other side of the pond. Well in this case it is; they get some really nice stuff that we will never see. If it was a PD-150, then yes, it's more than a match for a 1.8t. But for what we get here, it's like comparing a Japanese Civic Type-R to a North American Civic Lx (or more appropriately Hx :)).

I have actually driven one with a "few simple mods", and the difference over stock is quite noticable. I can't really say if it is any faster than my stock 1.8t... it didn't have the rush of power as the boost comes on, so it's hard to say if it is faster. I'm told they do low 16's QM in this trim.

A turbo/supercharged 8v (would fit into FSS/SP) would have to be pretty quick as well, and you have to compare modded to modded.

-Gord

There are 1.8T's running mid to high 14's with just a chip and high 13's is becoming more common with boltons. The fastest stock turbo 1.8T in North America is running 12.85 with ~50 shot of nitrous. You'd need to do a lot to get that out of a North American TDI, although I've heard of a 12 sec PD150. I don't want to know what they did to that car. I find it funny that they would be in the same class. Same chassis. Same weight. Same suspension design. Completely different engines with completely different outputs built with different goals in mind, the TDI to get 45mpg and the 1.8T for performance.

The cars will handle similarly but there is a definite deficit in acceleration and straight line ability which favours the 1.8T.

[Gord]

Originally posted by MitS
There are 1.8T's running mid to high 14's with just a chip and high 13's is becoming more common with boltons. The fastest stock turbo 1.8T in North America is running 12.85 with ~50 shot of nitrous. You'd need to do a lot to get that out of a North American TDI, although I've heard of a 12 sec PD150. I don't want to know what they did to that car. I find it funny that they would be in the same class. Same chassis. Same weight. Same suspension design. Completely different engines with completely different outputs built with different goals in mind, the TDI to get 45mpg and the 1.8T for performance.

The cars will handle similarly but there is a definite deficit in acceleration and straight line ability which favours the 1.8T.

After years of driving 90 hp to learn how to get around corners, having double the power to get down the straights was an eye-opener. And that was in the Passat. A 1.8t Golf/Jetta/Bug must be insane!

Initial numbers I have heard on the PD150 w/ chip alone are 204 whp and torque on the happy side of 300. :) 4th gear roll on acceleration from 60-90mph is a second faster than a chipped 1.8t w/3" DP/Exhaust in 3rd gear (5.8 vs. 6.8 IIRC).

There is also a 200 hp (stock) diesel version of the Mk5 GTI being shown at an autoshow in Germany. Now if I could only get one here...

-Gord
(only 1050 km on my last tank from beating on the car)