Who is KJZ78701?

And I highly agree with Jason, we have to remember that we are all amateur racers with lots to learn- none of us are Buttons or Alonsos (yet anyway!) and from my year of racing so far it is completely clear to me that a few more horsepower is not going to change the outcome of one of our races. I have yet to delve much into suspension setup, but it is certainly something that I am interested in trying for next season.

Exit speed out of corners is absolutely key in these cars, and it is very likely to seem as if other cars have more powerful engines if you are not getting the most out of every turn, especially ones like 7 at RA where the straight afterwards is so long.

And yes, Jason's engine is strong, but it is certainly within the rules- that is not the point of this thread anyway.

And yes, Jason's engine is strong, but it is certainly within the rules- that is not the point of this thread anyway.

Hi Kyle, I believe it is. Not Jason's engine per se, but any perception that "you need the late model stuff to run at the front" should be a point of this topic (I never did like the word "thread"). I have an early car, but I'm still not sure I can finish the build with the parts I have and end up with a competitive torque curve. I can get my CR up to late model spec with the LC pistons, but I still have the early cam and am looking for data. Logic says that I am going to have less top end with the early cam since it has less overlap, and if that is the case, then a rules change that allows me to RETARD my cam timing (rather than advancing it as the rules now say), might allow me, others, to make an old cam motor make the same torque curve as the new cam motor. I'd also like to help build the numbers in this class and I am convinced that I can pull a few guys from other spec classes that have a history of being reactive rather than proactive with the rules.

Not about me, but...You are giving me the sense that I am uncomfortably rocking the boat. Sorry if that is the case. I just want you guys to think ahead and build a different (read more successful) spec class. I started racing "Spec" in 2000 and did well enough to build a business around it before I packed it up and moved to Europe five years ago. Now I'm back and want to race again....with a good bunch of guys who are principled and clean on the track. I saw that here a decade ago and based on the videos I've seen that is still the case. I want to win, but not at all cost. Hope that helps. Karl

Block sleeving and block decking are illegal.

Responded to question in quick reply

Thanks for the kudos. When I first started looking at cars, I didn't really know anyone in 944 SPEC. I did some research and figured a 924S might have an advantage on higher speed tracks due to being narrower. But first, I confirmed a 924S had actually won Nationals before, which it had. So, I figured a well developed car would have a chance.
In looking for one, I discovered they were pretty rare. My car was found in MN, owned by a IT engineer who participated in some PCA events with it. The car had actually been built by a very reputable shop in the Midwest, and he had bought it pre-built. Unfortunately, he didn't have the resources to run the car, so he decided to sell it. Being an engineer, he had extensive records on its build history. So, I decided to buy it.
Right off the transporter, the car was reasonably quick, but the suspension setup was way off and the clutch failed the first weekend. The interior also needed a complete sanding down and repaint. Also, in tearing the car apart underneath, we discovered a lot of items needed replacing due to corrosion from being in the upper Midwest, something we don't deal with in AZ. As an example, the rear brake caliper pistons were fused to the caliper due to rust, so zero rear brakes.
In the time since, we have pretty much replaced all the suspension and driveline items, though the engine and transmission has been fine other than occasional DME relay and reference sensor failures. The end result is a car that has certainly performed well, and is now reliable, but if I were to do it again, I would have found a car that hadn't spent as much time in inclement weather over the years.

KJZ78701 wrote:


Karl-

If being proactive in regard to rule changes you have picked the right class! Our ruleset has stayed extremely stable compared to other classes for as long as I have been racing and longer.

I agree with you that the perception of the 88 motor being better should be dealt with, that is why I wanted to put together a dyno test to put the matter (and the necessity of aftermarket pistons)to rest. I don't know anything about engine building or tuning but it could address the advance vs retard issue, too.

Both Dan and Tim (2 guys with far more experience, knowledge and talent than I will ever have) are of the opinion that the LC engine with the 2 degree key is substantially equal to the HC engine.

I don't doubt they are correct, I would just like to be able to demonstrate it via dyno testing in the same chassis so that it would be "official" more or less.

This way, new racers like you who don't have the benefit of knowing Dan or Tim could be comfortable in their selection of engines and, furthermore, we could demonstrate that, since the engines are equal, there is no need to address allowing aftermarket pistons until the LC piston supply has dwindled.

I ASSume this testing could be done at the director's level like Dan and Eric did a few years ago, if not, we can set up some sort of go fund me deal to defray the cost and do it on our end. This presumes there are enough racers that would rather test than argue, though , and I haven't gotten much support for my earlier post...