I used this past weekend's Waterford Hills race as my first test session for the new car.

They threw this picture on the Waterford Hills website. Just thought I'd share it.

(IMG:http://www.waterfordhills.com/gallery/jgr5y0414.jpg)

Learned a lot this weekend, like how some lug nuts don't fit some wheels, how I needed more front flare (notice the flare extensions) and how much I can squeeze out of my Optima before I don't get enough juice to run (no alternator). More learning to come on 11-12 Sept, but this time at Mid-Ohio.

Eric,

The dry sump cover is awesome. Are you going to run the accusump and the dry sump at the same time?

Oh, yeah. Eric, your dry sump mounting location is fine (as you probably already know). There's an allowance for the top of a dry sump tank/enclosure to be no higher than the cowl.

Overhead view... sorry about the shadows

jbvnm

The two rod ends are held to the strut with a 3/4" bolt that threads into the strut (that took some work). I have to remvove that bolt to adjust bump (that sucks). The bolt in wire tied to prevent back out.

The plate on the vertical wall is used to provide stucture and mounting for the steering rack.

This is the forward "a-arm" mount to the body. With this setup any cornering loads are transmitted into the cage and throughout the car.

Again, your mileage may vary.

Interesting work Kevin.


The rear suspension mods as Chris stated are not for Camber/Toe changes but to get the swinging arm at a better location. When you get the car stiff enough at the rear without this mod, it can become "bound up" because the arm angle is at an upslope (the rear is higher than the front) the compression of the arm can be very odd, and the force of a bump is almost a tension force on the pivot due to the angle. This is not good, also when the pivot remains in the standard location, the shock and spring are in a somewhat cantivlever action, so the spring and compresion valving is somewhat digressive, some tuners compensate this with VERY heavy spring rates, and then the bump compliance is very poor. By moving the points, we can get good bump compliance and proper "movement geometry" for the arm, the result is better tracking of the wheel over bumps, especially on the brakes when the rear is lighter.

I am running an accusump as well as the dry sump, Just something about prelubricating engines before they are started. It's like warming tires prior to use, it's just plain better for you and the tire.

As far as shocks go, I have Bilsteins right now, but have Ohlins for the rear uninstalled and will be getting the Kanna Motorsports front struts with Ohlins Internals. I know what the Bilsteins are all about, so I wanted to tune the chassis using them as a base line, then sell them and develop the Ohlins around the package I have.

As for the front end, I have been looking at several Grand am cars front suspension, as well as some development work I have been doing on my own. I may not have quite as long of front a-arms that you have, but I will be moving the rack and the front a arms up 45-50mm in the chassis and lengthening them 105-125 mm This will not be done until next year when the car gets stripped and rebuilt. I have a couple more cage changes to make for stiffness, but need to see where I am on weight first.

HP:::: I like you! So don't take any offense, You are on HP crack. No way no how. Miata, 230 HP, no bullshit, RX7 well over 210 at the wheels, don't have any crank numbers for that one. But if you factor in the 15 % dyno correction for power at the crank that would leave us at 241.5 , and I think the RX7 13B is all of that and then some. Of course these are peak numbers , but the cars seem to make enough power under the curve as well. The real winner in EP is the Rebello built 240sx and 240z, the Z makes well into 255-260hp and the sx makes better than 250. When they go, gear for gear with the Miata and weigh 350 pounds more, theres more under the hood.

As for me, EP must make 9.25 LBs/hp, So to do that, I will need 210 for 1950 lbs. Now everyone will tell you they have done it, but have they really, or did they build a "cookbook" motor and call it 220 because it had 906 sized parts in the motor. Or a legal to EP specs,using the small carbs, with the small heads ...etc No material addition is the one that kills me, if not I would have already welded and reshaped the combustion chambers to actually burn completely.

What the SCCA does not realize is once that weight is moving, and aero takes over, its only motor pushing from there baby.

My car needs to be clean, mean, well sorted and well driven to have any chance they will change the spec line for me. On a regional level, it should win, on a national level, it won't. But I have hopes the SCCA will come around and make some adjustments. Brakes "S" caliper please, 46 mm carbs with 42 venturis please, "s" 2.0 liter heads with 46mm intake and 42 mm exhaust please, Thats all I ask?



Erik Madsen in search of a Runoffs Birth in 2005

I am "dong it" as we speak.

Kevin WILL do it in EP in 2005.....

Kevins style pushes the envelope. As soon as I saw that I knew he and I had to work together.

He could have ran in FP and with 1/2 the money he is spending he could have been a front runner very easily. He is not taking the easy way out and because of that I am soaking up tons of time into this project that he isn't paying me a dime for.

Hell, I only have 5 parts for the engine at my shop and already have 40 hours of labor in it- the first wrench hasn't even been turned yet!

No "cookbook" engine on this end(those don't exist). It would take an entire dictionary to record this project.

BTW, it will see atleast 5 camshaft changes before it ever leaves my test cell. Maybe 3-4 differnt carb arrangements, and a couple of different exhaust systems. I won't be a bit suprised if it doesn't need a "freshening up" before it even gets shipped. (thats okay because it will give us an idea of how the engine is wearing so we can predict scheduled maintenance more accurately)

Every area that is "open" in the rulebook will be maximized- its the only way we'll make it happen and keep it together.

"when I have fully decided that a result is worth getting, I go ahead of it and make trial after trial till it comes"
Edison

Jake,

I hope you did not think I was talking about you. The "cookbook" that I am talking about is the guys claiming they have 220hp for a 2.0 liter six because they have the 906 pistons,cams.carbs etc...

My only experience with the 2.0 liter four in prod was years ago, and with Dave Finch doing the engines to the rules at that time, 195 hp was on tap, but not for long, based on the weight Kevin needs to carry, 195hp in his car should do very well, at his weight, if you make 195 at the crank, and I think you may do a little better than that, but at 195hp his lbs per hp is 9.5, so it will take just over 200hp to be able to run with the Miatas, but don't kid yourself, the top running guys all are somewhere near 9.0-9.25 lbs per hp, anything under that and it is time to pack up and run with the small dogs, and none of us is interested in that.

Make that kind of Hp and maybe I will convert, the four cylinder car has better weight distribution anyway.

Erik Madsen

also

Nicely done Kevin.
It looks very simple.
What did you do to cover up the relocated pickup points per PCS D.5.d.2 ?

Chris, I was thinking the same thing about the relocated pickup points??

Chris,

Does'nt that apply only if the relocation enters into the drivers compartment, or am I wrong.

Erik

Post Script:

Chris, what do you think of Jims car??? Finally finished.

Thank God.

"If such points are relocated to the driver/passenger/trunk compartments such points and attendant suspension components shall be covered with metal panels."

That's what my GCR says.

Jim's car looks very nice. I thought you delivered it to him a while ago already.

The 240sx guys are running the K24 motor right? If that is the case then there is no way in hell they are making that kind of power. The GT3 240SX gets 50mm venturies and unrestricted engine prep. They are having a hell of a time getting over 230-250. So I know some one is feeding you a line on that one. If the Miata is running unrestricted head prep maybe, but I would have to see it to beleive it. The RX7, maybe in Runoff trim, turning 10,500 rpm. Maybe. I have a friend that is running a 13b rotary, peripherial port in GT2 and makes about 325 flywheel with 51mm venturies. His last 12A made about 275 with 48mm vents (peripherial port). I just don't see a street port motor that in street trim makes at best 175 flywheel HP (12A), making 76% more power in race trim.

As far as rotaries go you will be able to pull him out of the corners as the rotaries just don't make the torque like piston engines do. I definitely see the Challengers they are fast and getting faster, but they are by no means unbeatable.


I gotta shrink the pics first, Kevin

Kevin,


If I thought they were unbeatable, I would not be doing this exercise, thats for sure. But the 240 SX is faster than the Miata and so is the 240 Z and so is the GEN 1 and GEN 2 RX7, in a straight line, but the Miata goes throught the turns better, and when you consider the Miata DOES have 225-230 HP, and weighs 2100 then what kind of hp does the sx have to have to be faster than it and weigh 2450lbs???? In calculation this calculates out to better than 265hp, so yes it has a bigger stroke and should'nt be as peaky, but there is no way on this earth that a EP 240 does not make at least 255 hp. BTW I got the HP numbers for the Miata from an old EP Miata competitor that I know very well. The 240SX and Z are extrapulated, but the Miata and the RX7 GEn 2 are for real on the same dyno as I had my 944, yes I had a dark side once too.

Bottomline, you can be competitive with a four cylinder car especially at the current weight, but can the motor make the HP you will need to win, and will it stay together and if it does, for how long. As for me I will have some more development work to do to make the kind of HP necessary to win EP with the six. BTW anyone have any triple throat solexes with manifolds for sale cheap, I have a science project I want to do.

Erik Madsen

I agree about the potential of the 4 cyl 914 in EP... or else I wouldn't be doing it. But, I also know it will take a while to get there. Let's not forget these top competitors have already sorted their cars and know how to extract the most out of them. It's going to be fun (and not easy), no question.

About covering the front suspension points. I was going to do that before the first SCCA race, but ran out of time. The tech inspectors didn't seem to care. But, I still wonder about that phrase "the driver/passenger/trunk compartments." Is it an all inclusive statement like "driver, passenger, or trunk compartments" or is the word trunk there to make sure hatchback driver cover their points from the driver?

Another debatable rule.

Anyway, I can make covers for them pretty easily.

I, personally, hate getting into a horsepower discussion. I'd rather Jake discuss it. He's better at that anyway.

BTW, Eric, I think you're attributing some of Brent's horsepower statements to me, since I haven't made any (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) .

But, here's some data from the production website.

http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/viewto...opic.php?t=3539

Sorry K,


Yeah I think I have!. Anyway, the EP guys are very fast at the National level, I am lucky to have John Weisberg and Jrry Hinkle in my area, both are very good drivers and have very fast cars. So it is a good thumb check to know how fast I really will be. Can't do any worse than some. Made some more progress this weekend, Oil system plumbed and fuel system plumbed. Some very small fab work left, and then it will be time to install the drivetrain. Maybe I'll test it plowing snow.

Anyone have that snowplow installation number for 914's, Brad???, Mueller?


LOL

Erik

I may need that snowplow, too.

I threw in a new clutch over the weekend so I can make this weekend's race at Nelson. I hope it's not too cold. All this to keep my National license..... I miss California!!!!

Last race on the weak engine. I can't wait for next year!!!

Since you brought up the Production website....
The word is that if they bring back "DP" we will be allowed to run 2.5l sixes, that would be a fast class