autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution

To: "Mohler, Jeff" <jeff.mohler@wilcom.com>,
Subject: RE: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution
From: Brian M Kennedy <kennedy@i2.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:18:35 -0500
At 04:51 PM 6/22/99 , Mohler, Jeff wrote:

>And since SP modifications allow as MUCH non-mechanical modifications as
>possible to increase intake airflow, then that surely matches a turbocharger
>being allowed to move as much air as mechanically (stock) possible.

I disagree with this logic.  SP modifications allow you to open up intake
congestion such that the engine can pull in all the air it can.  The 
potential gains there are just not too big -- the max is limited by the
engine vacuum and is rarely much higher than the stock intake.  That is
easy to class properly.

That's completely different than allowing you to force in air.  The 
potential there is huge.  And since you can get widely varying gains 
with relatively small mods of turbo systems, the potential for grossly 
unfair classing is nontrivial.

And since the number of SP competitors that could possibly benefit from
the rule is so small, while the number of SP competitors that could get
burned in the future is much larger, I think the SEB has the right answer.

I'd rather see a grandfathering rule for the DSM guys, than see the SP
rules opened up for the potential problems that future turbo models
could cause.

Just MHO,

Brian


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>