[randyzimmer]

After getting some ideas I liked and more that I hated, here is the roundup of what I have decided drivers could work toward to keep themselves in business for more than a year or two.
I would hope you keep this formula in mind when suggesting a starting point to your friends and as a direction for yourself in the future.

---
#1 philosophy:
If it costs a lot, is rare or may break other things, it isn't allowed.
Any sube, ~90 Legacy right up to the Bugeye Impreza ('02)
Really stock unless mentioned below:
2.2 engine
max 4.1 gear (3.9 OK, 4.4 not)
DMS is the most expensive allowed strut.
Strip and lighten OK but all glass or nets.
Seam weld OK
Brake pads OK
STi rubber OK
Button clutch disk OK
---
Any other question - answer with this question:
Will it real cost money to do?
If so, probably not allowed.
Will it make the car faster?
Probably not allowed.
Will it make it safer or less prone to breakage?
Probably OK but don't be cute, no Solo-type reasoning allowed.
Can I take the door beams out of the doors? That won't cost money.
Rears OK but fronts should stay in, it's safer.
---
Any interest?
It will only be fun when there are a bunch of cars like this out there. I don't think any of the 2.5NA guys will switch soon until some others start doing it. When that happens, I think it'd be a hoot.
rz

rz

 

[lummer shawn]

i think that sounds like a blast, its too bad this isnt in canada, that is the class i would build for

 

[rightseat]

Sounds super.

Like to see 2.5 engines, tho. (Mostly cuz I just bought another one!) As a weight penalty, my skinny codriver would have to wear cement galoshes.

Am assuming you mean stock ECUs as well

Like the concept of mix n match under the skin....race cars always end up being Frankensteined a lot

Dave G
Spec Imp fan
LDR

 

[randyzimmer]

Dave,
I don't know that to allow a weight penalty would work.
example:
Name three rally events you've been weighed.
See.

So now I have another reason to say NO!
Easier with one engine.
Just be glad there are more 2.2s out there than 1.8s and shut up about the 2.5.
Talk it up, this makes rally affordable from the hardware side, now to compact the events.
rz

 

[John Cassidy]

I was going to comment that I don't think guys will switch their 2.5 cars to 2.2. I know it's perhaps not a productive comment, but what do current 2.5 jockeys think?

Randy and Dave have 2.5's. I see lots of 2.5 rally rigs for sale. Are people going to swap in 2.2s? On the one hand, I hope so. From a driver's point of view I don't think so.

We've been weighed at 2 events I can think of. Maybe Group F and Spec Impreza need to invest in a set of scales?

Good place to start Randy!

Regards, John

 

[Don Kennedy]

Has anybody ever been weighed at an SCCA event? (were yours at Canadian events John?)

 

[randyzimmer]

LDR guys,
Remember, this was originally planned as an alternative to the techno GF 2wd cars that would run at an equal pace (giving those stupid refrigerators a break). Personally I think the 2.2 is overkill in that regard and will bury those guys with all the diffs, gears and cams they can throw at them. We may have to go down to 1.8 to make it fair.
rz

 

[randyzimmer]

I remember once, maybe twice, both at SCCA "pro".
Out west like RIM or OTPR.
Doug chased me all over at STPR to be sure I had two spares because I weighed light without them.
rz

 

[Glenn Wallace]

I will buy some really expensive tires.

 

[spoier]

>LDR guys,
>Remember, this was originally planned as an alternative to
>the techno GF 2wd cars that would run at an equal pace
>(giving those stupid refrigerators a break). Personally I
>think the 2.2 is overkill in that regard and will bury those
>guys with all the diffs, gears and cams they can throw at
>them. We may have to go down to 1.8 to make it fair.
>rz

Hahahah I guess we'll see about that

Skye

____________________
F4 Rallysport http://www.rallyrace.net/ - check out my build journal!
GroupF.org http://www.groupf.org/
CCCP Rally Club http://lists.f4.ca/mailman/listinfo/cccp/
Black Rocket Tires http://www.blackrockettires.com/ (coming soon)

 

[rightseat]

Spec Sube weight

Tulip was weighed at scrutineering for STPR 2003. Handy-dandy codriver notes indicate car weighed 2965 with John aboard, a big heavy Michelin spare and a full tank of Sunoco's finest pump gas. (Surprisingly, the corner weights were pretty good, but that's off topic here...)

To establish a weight penalty for 2.5s, why not just weigh Greg Healey's car as the Spec Sube baseline, and add 100 lbs to 2.5s min weight, and not worry whether the 2.5s are SOHC or DOHC or even SOL?

It's human nature (especially the nature of RALLY humans) to want biggest engine available in a certain model's production. If you're right about the 2.2's longevity, Spec Sube cars running 2.2s will outlast the fragile 2.5s, us 2.5 fools will blow up, run out of $$$, come sniveling back to buy el cheapo junker 2.2s, and you will have made your point in one single season.

Meanwhile, why not weight-penalize 2.5s instead of making people downsize their present engines? If 2.2 was the only option, you'd have all sorts of currently active 2.5 cars unlikey to join the new group--Hoskinson, the ex-Otis RS, ex-Bottoms RS, my car, YOURS (?!), Keith Morison, and prolly 20 other candidates nationwide.

As an entry-level class, here's a real-life implication of the 2.2-only rule: A friend who's come up thru the NER RallyX program and Team O'Neil just caged & DMSed his 2.5 RS street car and entered Black River...so now he not only experiences the heartache of his first event not happening, but would have to switch engines, too...???

Spec Sube is a great concept--simple aspro AWD cars instead of techy turbo money-gobblers. You get to spend your cash running events, not on a never-ending hardware quest. Let's beware of narrowing the parameters too much before the class even gets going.

Dave G
Unrepentant 2.5 collector: 2 blown motors (my fault), 1 good one

 

[John Cassidy]

I don't want to take this thread too far off it's intended focus, but I worry about ballasting cars.

I worry about where to find 100 pounds to put in a car(other than by adding my derriere! ;-)), and then how to secure that ballast in a way that is safe to thte occupants.

Would a mathematical time correction be more reasonable to apply to the a 2.5's stage times? I even think that's ridculous, but not having a way to invite the 2.5s in to the sandbox is a problem given the number of them out there.

I wasn't clear that the class was meant to be competitive with the 2WD Group F cars. I misunderstood and thought the Spec Impreza class was primarily a class designed to be ultra competitive within itself.

Everyone needs to take my comments with a grain of salt, as I'll probably continue running in Open Class because that's where I want to be right now.

I'd love to hear comments from more comments from folks like Quig, Joan, Keith M, Gerard Seguin, Stephane McNeil and others who have run NA Imprezas.

Cheers! John

 

[randyzimmer]

Well, nothing says you HAVE to run SS, NASA has a NA 4WD class already, PGT and Open allow the cars as usual so there's no noose around anyone's neck to do it Or Else! I just can't say it enough that doing the right thing is best earlier than later.
As painful as it would be to take a $150 to get a motor, loosen 6 exhaust nuts, 2 motor mount nuts, 2 starter bolts and 3 bellhousing bolts, remove 4 hose clamps and seperate a couple electrical plugs. And then the absolute HORROR of having to tighten them all up again may just be too much to expect a guy to do without the benefit of national health care and a shrink on call.
That's just the pain someone would need to suffer to have a great time comparing apples to apples instead of complaining, I'd have beat your ass except I had "------" (whatever).
If your buddy is new, let him run the 2.5 till he gets competitive, then shame him into getting a 2.2. This is all fun after all, just a way to make the time spent in the woods even more enjoyable.
rz

 

[Morison]

>I worry about where to find 100 pounds to put in a car(other
>than by adding my derriere! ;-)), and then how to secure
>that ballast in a way that is safe to thte occupants.

You'd mount the ballast outside the car, as low as possible, and bet placed to balance the car with fuel and people.

>Would a mathematical time correction be more reasonable to
>apply to the a 2.5's stage times?

It would be a nightmare to try and figure out a reasonable factor ...

>but not having a way to invite the 2.5s in to the
>sandbox is a problem given the number of them out there.

True, but my 2.5 runs in PGT/P4 and is happy there, but I am now waiting for others to make mistakes as the car doesn't have the power to keep up with well driver wrx's (Admitedly, I'm still on the learning curve)

>I'd love to hear comments from more comments from folks like
>Quig, Joan, *Keith M*, Gerard Seguin, Stephane McNeil and
>others who have run NA Imprezas.

Who, ME?

The discussion had me check a couple of things the other day. My 2.5RS will be entering its 49th rally on the weekend and the logbook shows 5 dnf's (suspension, clutch, and rear diff are 3 of them) and 6 events that show neither results nor damage indications. In my mind, a good finishing ratio for a privater car that used to finish at the top of the pack regularly.

At the moment I am looking to Martin Burnley (rs) and Tom Machnik (G2Golf) as my baselines, and the prospect of having a number of similar cars really intrigues me. Would I drop a 2.2 into the rocketship? no. Would I have considered building a 2.2 car? quite possibly.

The availbility and pricing of the 2.2's is such that you could prety much cage the shell for what an RS would set you back. I think the simplest formula for a spec series is the best.

That said, I don't advocate ANY one make series that does not have manufacturer support at some level. you have to remember that Volvo made it's name on reliability and longevity, so marketing plans with older body styles is NOT an impossible sell. If you run teh series and spec a certain car without manufacturer support, why would they buy into the 'program' after the fact, or buy into any other program for that matter.

 

[granthughes]

The older 2.2 is a better motor than the 2.5 anyhow. If you don't believe I don't really care but you could ask any experienced Subaru tech and they would agree. I think that would be a rad class. My friend Mark already has his Spec Impreza started.

 

[John Cassidy]

So, 2.2 sounds like the lowest common denominator that makes sense.

Who's ready to race in this SS now and who would consdier building a car?

Any show of hands?

Cheers! John

 

[Flyboy]

I know nothing about these cars, so I gotta ask. Just how much more powerful is 2.5 vs. a 2.2? Is there really that much difference? As long as they are reasonably close, I'd just run them together. We all know it's the driver that makes the difference.

Interesting class. I'd consider running it.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845

 

[NCWrencher]

the 2.5's are about 165hp, and the 2.2s are about 140hp. Not sure about tq numbers, though...


>I know nothing about these cars, so I gotta ask. Just how
>much more powerful is 2.5 vs. a 2.2? Is there really that

 

[John Vanlandingham]

>the 2.5's are about 165hp, and the 2.2s are about 140hp.
>Not sure about tq numbers, though...
>
>
>>I know nothing about these cars, so I gotta ask. Just how
>>much more powerful is 2.5 vs. a 2.2? Is there really that

I've driven both, I think the 2.2 has about 6.3 ft/lbs and the 2.5 has about 6.7 ft/lbs @ 4500 rpm.
Not bad for a Sub-a-rat.





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[randyzimmer]

http://www.cars101.com/subaru_archives.html
will tell you just about anything you want about the cars and what they were sold with.
Here are some highlights...

model year (my) '90 legacy
4 cylinder, 2.2 liter 16 valve, Overhead Cam Boxer engine with Sequential Multi-port fuel injection, 130 hp @ 5600 rpm, torque [email protected] rpm, Distributorless electronic ignition.

my '95 impreza
2.2L: 135 hp, 140 [email protected]

my '97
2.2L 4 cyl 16 valve SOHC boxer engine, fuel injected, 137 hp, 145 torque

my 1998
2.2 L 4 cylinder aluminum alloy 16 valve SOHC boxer engine,
Sequential Multi-port fuel injection,
istributorless ignition
Horsepower: 137 5400 rpm
Torque: 145 @ 4000 rpm

2.5 L 4 cylinder aluminum alloy 16 valve DOHC boxer engine (same as in Legacy outback, GT)
Sequential muliti-port Fuel injection,
Distributorless ignition
Horsepower: 165 @ 5600 pm
Torque: 162 @ 4000 rpm
Platinum tipped spark plugs

my 2000
Engine: Phase II, 2.2 L 4 cylinder aluminum alloy 16 valve SOHC boxer engine,
Sequential Multi-port fuel injection,
distributorless ignition
Horsepower: 142 @ 5600 rpm
Torque: 149 @ 3600 rpm
30,000 mile spark plug replacement

Engine: Phase II 2.5 L 4 cylinder aluminum alloy 16 valve SOHC boxer engine.
Sequential muliti-port Fuel injection,
Distributorless ignition
Horsepower: 165 @ 5600 pm
Torque: 166 @ 4000 rpm
30,000 mile spark plug replacement

rz