Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We're finishing(over the next month) our '94 Impreza L sedan AWD with a 1.8L engine.

My question is this. Using the multipliers in the rulebook, I come up with an adjusted displacement of 2,839.2CC. This puts the car in PGT. (1,820cc disp x 1.3 x 1.2)

Obviously, with 110bhp, we won't be a threat to the WRX! ;-) Is there any sense/precedent for us to petition being in Prod?

Thought I'd throw this out there and get some feedback. Also, who would I talk to at SCCA about this?

Thanks for the feedback! John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Brian,
Thanks for the feedback! I had thought this initially(about no AWD in production), but it does not appear to be in the rulebook(at least I haven't found it). AWD is not mentioned as being class specific, but perhaps the SCCA made the multipliers such that all AWD vehicles qualify as PGT. Obviously, with our little 1.8L engine, we qualify for PGT. If we didn't have 4 valves per cylinder though, we'd technically qualify for Prod(1820cc x 1.3 AWD = 2366cc adjusted).


There's a paragraph on pge 99 of the 2202 rulebook,

F-7.) "Production GT Specifications
All other vechicles meeting the eligibility requirements of this section but with engines larger than 2650cc adjusted will run in the Production GT class."

I know there are others who have experience with this. Has there ever been an AWD car in production?

Cheers! John
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>I know there are others who have experience with this. Has
>there ever been an AWD car in production?

In Canada there are a couple of Justys that run/have run in Production (P1). Also, Keith Townsend's Corolla All-Trac could have run in Production in its first rally if we hadn't ripped the interior out. (The Corolla had a 1600cc motor).

I doubt if you have a case for an exemption, especially since there are a couple of 2.2L AWD Imprezas running in PGT already

Adrian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Adrian,
I agree that we probably have little in the way of grounds for an exemption, but I found it interesting at the Rallye de Quebec to see all the different production classes there.

Any reason why we don't do that stateside, and is the Canadian system more reflective of FIA classing?

Thanks for the discussion! John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
Yup, your right, AWD is allowed given low enough corrected displacement. I would think with a car that low in HP that AWD might acutally be a disadvantage because of the weight, but I dont know.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Ain't just the weight, which might be 150 or so lbs, there are big powertrain losses in twirling all the extra stuff around. Pretty much a pointless excercise, if you don't have a sheeeet load of power, why would you need AWD?

Geeeze, why build a car if you know it's not competitive and then ask about petition to change rules?

I figure there should be essientialy three classes: 2wd, turbo and rotary 2wd and 4wd, certainly would be more comprehensible to the public.













John Vanlandingham
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,246 Posts
if i were you (which of couse im not) i would run it in pgt to start out with, or replace the tranny w/a fwd unit and run it in g2. the car would be a good g2 car w/ the heavy rear sway bar. and once you get the hang of it put a turbo on it replace the awd and run it in open. the 1.8 is an indestructable engine and would be ok in pgt in club becuse of its reliability. move up through attrition!

greg donovan
equally screwed by subarus goofy displacenent and the rules

i have a '90 fwd legacy w/the 2212cc engine which is 12cc too big for P so my car is either g5 or pgt. i plan on building a hot rod 1.8 and running in g2 or turbocharging the 2.2 and running in g5. but i am staying away from pgt for the long run. maybe my first events will be run in pgt results be damned to minimize the prep costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Then again, it seems that the popularity of PGT has fallen enough that you might not do too bad, just by showing up!

jb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Well, John V raised an interesting point. Why build a car that's not competitive?

I think that most would admit that cars are built for rally for lots of different reasons. Cost, availability and reliability are a few that are at the top of my list.

I don't think that we'll be uncompetitive, but clearly there are cars that will beat us. Just as when we had our Group 2 CRX.

In no way did I want to imply that I was going to push the classification of our car in a petition to the SCCA. I was throwing the idea out to see what folks thought and appreciate all the feedback.

The rules are clear on where we stand-PGT. The next step for the car would be to make it into an Open car once we've explored the PGT class.

Cheers! John
 

·
straight at T
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
>Any reason why we don't do that stateside, and is the
>Canadian system more reflective of FIA classing?

The Canadian P classes are aligned with the FIA N classes.
This means that we have far too many classes...

Until two years ago, the CARS and SCCA P classes were very
similar except that CARS had P1750 for smaller displacement cars.

Adrian
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top