Sunoco 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 25 Feb 2012 12:12 AM by  AutoXCamaro
Any rumors on FSP moves?
 211 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 11 << < 12345 > >>
Author Messages
RtsLanE5
New Member
New Member
Posts:32


--
06 Oct 2009 11:47 AM
Im going to go ahead and agree with Jason here. If there is no advantage to update/backdating anything between the year split they added, why does it even matter? It shouldnt at all, because you are neither at an advantage or disadvantage because of it, so you say.
Storm
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:388


--
06 Oct 2009 04:42 PM

All things being equal, not having a year break would widen the pot of available replacement parts (which shouldn't be a problem for a Saturn product) by using the UD/BD allowance.

My 0.02 anyway.

subrew
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
06 Oct 2009 08:37 PM

Yup, what Jay said. Combining into one line doesn't give a performance gain, yet makes it easier in terms of UD/BD.

So to turn it around, why should they separate them?

bmwguy325is
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
07 Oct 2009 01:49 AM
subrew wrote:

Yup, what Jay said. Combining into one line doesn't give a performance gain, yet makes it easier in terms of UD/BD.

So to turn it around, why should they separate them?

It's simple: To piss people off and make them lose sleep at night and type nasty things on a thread LOL

Gunny JC
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
07 Oct 2009 07:43 AM
I thought about this quite a bit and here's my well-thought-out ideas on this...imo anyways. [:P] The Spac recommended a break after the 1995 model year. I've compiled a list of significant changes by year for the S-series below. By looking at this list my guess for the break after the 1995 year is that is when they S-series sedans & wagons received the 2nd generation styling update. If that is the case I'd also recommend to make the break effective for the coupes after the 1996 season since they received the 2nd generation styling update a year later. Another break (and more realistic imo) is a break after the mid 1999 changes which included the 3rd generation styling update and the new head design for the DOHC engines.

1991 - Saturn S-series introduced

1993 - Driver's side airbag added to steering wheel

1995 - Passenger side airbag added to dash. No more automatic sliding seatbelts.

1996 - Switched to OBD-2, sedans & wagons get 2nd generation interior/exterior styling update.

1997 - Coupes now built on same chassis as the sedans & wagons (3.2" longer wheelbase) and get 2nd generation interior/exterior styling update.

Mid 1999 - DOHC engines get new designed head designed for better emission control. All cars get 3rd generation interior/exterior update.

2002 - Last model year for S-series

splash
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:960


--
07 Oct 2009 08:17 PM

Well Jason, you are right, there is no difference performance wise and the net effect of leaving everything on 1 line vs. keeping it the way it is is nil. However, unlike the Civics and Proteges, there were no chassis changes or engine/tranny changes, other than some piston/rod/head spec changes in mid '99.. The SC2 went to a longer chassis in '97, but it's the same chassis the SL2 and SW2 were already on. If they wanted to catch any engine changes at all, the breakpoint should be between '99 and 2000, but really, the changes are very slight. The only possible gain from those changes would involve mixing the years of the internal parts, which is already illegal.

My point against leaving them separated is simple. If I have a '94 and I found a screaming deal on a '97 engine, I should be able to use it. There are zero differences between it and a '95 engine. I should not be limited to just '91-'95 engines just because someone arbitrarily picked that year to divide them... I found it ironic that they picked that year because the only difference between a '95 SC2 and a '96 SC2 is OBD2, which SP doesn't care about. Only the SL/SW body shape changed that year.

I realize that the SPAC got burned on the Proteges, which brought about their division, but with those cars, there were 3 different chassis and 2 different engine/tranny combos. They 'should' have been divided already, but it got missed until someone actually built one. They were right to divide the Neons similarly, there are serious differences there. Saturns don't have this, and what little differences there are, aren't caught by the division year they have picked.

Which reminds me, are they aware that all Accords from 1989-up are on the same line?

bmwguy325is
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
07 Oct 2009 09:10 PM
splash wrote:

Which reminds me, are they aware that all Accords from 1989-up are on the same line?

1989 Accord V6 6speed here I come.

gary p
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2730


--
08 Oct 2009 04:20 AM

REALSPEED74STS wrote:
Because i feel that the SEB ans the SPAC have done their homework on the reclassification on the saturn, there needs to be year splits like the protege and the civic...

I would be VERY interested if they would share that homework. Those of us who know the S-Series are puzzled not just by the fact that there is a split, but also by where that split point is. The proposed split point, as far as I can tell, serves no purpose in limiting performance. It is only an unnecessary obstacle to potentially economical and expedient parts sourcing.

Gunny JC
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
08 Oct 2009 04:24 AM

I just sent my letter to the SEB with my recommendations....

To the members of the SEB,
The Spac recommended a break after the 1995 model year. I've compiled a list of significant changes by year for the S-series below. The only hing that happened in 1996 other than some styling changes was the addition of OBD2 which effectively disappears with the SP allowances. The SC coupes started being built on the same chassis in 1997 so there could be a break after 1996 to keep the shorter coupes together, albeit still with the sedans and wagons which didn't change chassis at all...ever. If there needs to be a break, the most realistic break would be after the mid 1999 changes happened which included the 3rd generation styling update and the new head design & different connecting rod/piston combination for the DOHC engines. My first recommendation would be to keep all of the S-series on one line since any performance advantages that could be had (i.e. 99-02 longer rod/shorter piston combo with 91-98 head) are negated by the SP ruleset. If it is felt there has to be a year break then I recommend to keep the 1991 to mid-1999 year models together on a single line. This greatly increases the ability to find replacement parts if needed (i.e. a person blows up their 1993 engine or trans and they found a great deal on a used low mileage 1998 engine or trans).

1991 - Saturn S-series introduced

1993 - Driver's side airbag added to steering wheel

1995 - Passenger side airbag added to dash. No more automatic sliding seatbelts.

1996 - Switched to OBD-2, sedans & wagons get 2nd generation interior/exterior styling update.

1997 - Coupes now built on same chassis as the sedans & wagons (3.2" longer wheelbase) and get 2nd generation interior/exterior styling update.

Mid 1999 - DOHC engines get new designed head designed for better emission control. Connecting rods slightly longer and shorter pistons (same length overall). All cars get 3rd generation interior/exterior update.

2002 - Last model year for S-series

Respectfully submitted,

J. Wiser

gary p
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2730


--
08 Oct 2009 04:42 AM

JC Wiser wrote:

I just sent my letter to the SEB with my recommendations....

If there needs to be a break, the most realistic break would be after the mid 1999 changes happened which included... the new head design & different connecting rod/piston combination for the DOHC engines.


I will check today, but I'm pretty sure the 99+ engine would still be allowed in the earlier cars due to parts supersession. But its an academic point. If there's a performance potential differential between the two it is miniscule.

JBrettHowell
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
08 Oct 2009 05:11 AM

splash wrote:
My point against leaving them separated is simple. If I have a '94 and I found a screaming deal on a '97 engine, I should be able to use it. There are zero differences between it and a '95 engine. I should not be limited to just '91-'95 engines just because someone arbitrarily picked that year to divide them...

How would one know the difference between a 94 and a 97 motor? If they are truly identical then there is no reason you can't use it. The 97 motor is, for all intents and purposes, a motor that could be legally found in a 94 model. Correct?

Or look at it this way - could you source new parts to build a motor from scratch that would be legal for a 94 model and would be identical to the 97 motor?

Point being if there truly is no difference before and after the break (except for the mid-99 changes) then it doesn't matter. I concur that it would probably be better (less confusing) to avoid any unnecessary lines in the classifications, but if everything I am reading is correct, then there is no hardship created for someone building a Saturn for SP.

splash
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:960


--
08 Oct 2009 12:04 PM

I'm allowing for any identification that might be on the engine itself. You are right in that they are identical, nobody should be able to tell the difference, outside or inside, but I wouldn't want some sort of casting defect or ID mark limiting parts availability. (especially now that it looks like Saturn will just get killed off)

One man's junkyard is another man's treasure...

I agree with what you're saying, but a guy standing in front of a '97 car that is thinking about using that engine will bypass it, just to avoid any potential issue with his '94 car when impound rolls around. I'm just saying there's no technical reason that should happen.

I am largely just curious HOW the SPAC or SEB came to choose '95-'96 as the point to break them up because nobody familar with the cars can figure it out. Unlike Jason, I don't trust that "they've done they're homework" because that's how the issue with Proteges happened in the first place. I see the breaking up of the Saturns as a knee-jerk reaction to that debacle.

"Doing their Homework" is why the '09 rulebook says "Sentra 1.6L ('91+)" and on another line "Sentra & SE-R ('91-'94)". So, can you put a '91 SE-R drivetrain into a '92 Sentra XE 4-door or not?

I'm not really trying to dog the AC's or the SEB, they are volunteer positions and I'm glad we even have such an arrangement, but their work needs checked, just like everyone else's.

RtsLanE5
New Member
New Member
Posts:32


--
12 Oct 2009 09:44 PM
splash wrote:

I'm not really trying to dog the AC's or the SEB, they are volunteer positions and I'm glad we even have such an arrangement, but their work needs checked, just like everyone else's.

And thats why we have the ability to write letters to the SEB and SPAC. Haha. Its almost like writing a letter to your senator, who knows if its even read? (Only kidding)

MattP
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:350


--
13 Oct 2009 08:38 AM
Any news on any other moves, like the proposed combination of all 92-96 Civics on the same line?
GTIspirit
New Member
New Member
Posts:23


--
14 Oct 2009 02:19 PM
I wonder why there was only followup on the Saturns in the October 2009 Fastrack. The October 2008 Fastrack included some other cars where member feedback was sought in proposal to move them from DSP to FSP. What happened to the Volkswagen Golf/Jetta 16v (A2), Scirocco 16v? I wrote last October in support of the proposal but nothing yet. So as suggested earlier, I dropped my Regional Solo Chairperson a note asking the status. I'm also eagerly awaiting the outcome, as the Mk2 16V vehicles are totally outclassed in DSP..... :(
Gunny JC
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
14 Oct 2009 06:08 PM
The squeaky wheel....you know the rest. [;)]
splash
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:960


--
22 Oct 2009 02:20 PM
Well, the Saturns are in (with the existing 95/96 year break), the EG Civics get the Z6 motor and Si tranny now, and the EK Civics get the Y8 motor now... Joy
MattP
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:350


--
22 Oct 2009 02:28 PM
I guess it's time to write the letter to move the 16V Scirocco to the same line as the rest of the A1 VW's in FSP, and move the other 16V stuff into FSP for 2011...
Storm
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:388


--
22 Oct 2009 03:50 PM
splash wrote:
....... the EG Civics get the Z6 motor and Si tranny now, and the EK Civics get the Y8 motor now... Joy
What does this mean in english? Can ya break it down for someone who knows nothing about Hondas except that they're all lion cheetahs? [:P]
splash
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:960


--
22 Oct 2009 04:20 PM

I'm not a Honda expert, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...

OK, I just read up a bit on them a while back...

EG Civic is the 92-95, EK is the 96-00 hatchbacks. (just like your car is a GC Impreza, which is a 93-01 2-door coupe)

Z6 is short for D16Z6, which is the code for the 1.6L VTEC engine in the '92-'95 Civic Si. I believe the Si tranny from those years is also shorter geared. If the 92-95 EX also had the shorter gears, then they've had them for a while now.

Y8 is short for D16Y8, the code for the 1.6L VTEC engine in the 96-00 Civic EX. The EX tranny was already allowed in FSP. I believe it is also shorter geared than the standard EK hatch trannys. That shorter gear (combined with being able to use the D16Y7) is a possible reason why Tipple was able to run with the EG D15-powered Civics, despite being considerably heavier. IMO, of course. I'm sure someone better versed in Hondas will correct what I have wrong.

It was the VTEC part of the Z6 and Y8 engines that had kept them out of FSP until now. FWIW both the Z6 and Y8 are rated at 125 to 128 chp or so.

I have to admit, I'm surprised you'd be asking this now. The proposal to rewrite the Civic entries for DSP/FSP has been out for a while, and you have a definite stake in the results.

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 11 << < 12345 > >>


Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
Leroy Engineering Micro Button Sunoco 88x31 Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner