"Steven N. Burkett" wrote:
>
> Since this whole "comfort and convenience" thing has been recently taken
> to the extreme on this list, I thought I'd ask a related question.
>
> If I want to change something soley to reduce the likelihood of engine
> failure, that will have no effect on anything else, does that count as
> convenience?
>
> Two specific examples, both RX-7 TT related:
>
> 1) There is a common failure point in the cooling system, a plastic air
> separator tank. When fails, you dump most of your coolant right this very
> instant. Solution is to replace with an aluminum aftermarket part.
>
> 2) Vaccuum (pressure) tubes. These tend to blow off under boost,
> resulting in various problems. Putting them back on often involves a
> great deal of work, so many folks put hose clamps or cable ties on them.
>
> So are these legal in stock? The first, of course, is not only more
> convenient for me, it is more convenient to the person behind me. ;-)
>
> A potential argument against the second would be: the stock car is more
> likely to blow an actuator hose and lose boost. Therefore, tying the
> tubes is a performance modification (sort of).
>
> Any opinions appreciated. Sorry for the lack of turbo vs NA content...
Steven,
This is a long standing problem. It's called reliability vs.
performance concerns. If you allow for a "reliability" modification, say
your aluminum air separator tank, can you possibly foresee a way to
exploit the -concept- of that modification to increase performance? I'll
bet with a little imagination, you can do just that. Yours is not the
only car like this either, it's age-old.
Porsche 911: Cam chain tensioners on older engines have a known failure
mode and are very often the very first thing upgraded when the engine is
opened up for a rebuild or whatever. However, because Porsche never
issued a TSB on this, it's not legal in Stock or in Street Prepared.
F-Body cars: The infamous Sub Frame Connector argument. The F-body cars
twist and flex under the heavy loads that the engine and the sticky
tires place on them, and develop premature fatigue related damage in the
chassis in some cars. However popular these SFC's are in the
aftermarket, the hotrod market, and the rest of the muscle car world,
the manufacturer has not mandated them. Hence, they're not legal.
These are the two biggest arguments in the "reliability" debate. But
look at it from a perspective of an imaginative tweaker. Hmm, I can put
SFC's in an F-body car. But hey, doesn't that mean I can put 'em in my
CSP Honda too? Or my BSP Z-car? Does this imply that I can reinforce my
chassis? Cool! I can weld in a chassis bracing kit into my 914! Do you
see what kind of can of worms can be potentially opened up doing this?
I'm not in favor of these rulings, I myself would love to see some of
these reliability things allowed. But it's a slippery slope to start
down, and I can see the viewpoint of the SEB as well.
-Josh2
--
Joshua Hadler '74 914 2.0 CSP/Bi - Hooligan Racing #29 - CONIVOR
'87 Quantum Syncro - aka stealth quattro
jhadler@rmi.net
http://rainbow.rmi.net/~jhadler/
|