> A. I would be in favor of convertibles that meet the four passenger, front
> engine, etc. criteria. So what if they're potentially lighter?
I can see which way the wind is blowing here. :) OK, the convertibles are in, as
long as they retain the factory top and retraction mechanism. How's that?
> B. Most racing organizations have a rotary equivalency formula. The thought >
of a triple rotor, turbocharged engine stuffed inside one of the top CSP
> RX2/RX3s would be interesting!
Interesting is good. OK, so we need to change the displacement limit for
rotories.
While we're on displacement limits, Karl's comment about service overbores on
3.1l motors is well taken - except how many of these motors are really 3.1l? For
instance, the 2.0l Mitsu motor is really something like 1.980l.
There has to be a hard "go nae furtherrr" displacement limit.
Karl, what's the actual displacement of the 3.1 motor + service overbore you're
thinking of? Can we get away with 3.150, or 3.125, or what?
> C. What about gear ratio/final drive ratio changes, without limitation?
> Don't know about the small displacement crowd, but that's one of the most
> common muscle car mods.
Driveline - including transmissions, differentials, driveshafts, axles, etc - is
unlimited.
Is that not clear enough from the rules? (I'm not being snarky)
Incidently, that's not my addition, that's how I read the existing STU rules.
DG
|