I disagree with your anology.
There is a very popular engine conversion for the Fiero out there - a
Northstar engine with a Isuzu 5 speed tranny. This drivetrain setup would
easily be within the scope and rules of SM right out of the box, and would
come very close to the numbers you are discussing. It actually weighs less
than the 2.8 V6 the suspension was designed for.
A small block Chevy is also a common engine swap in these cars, and an
aluminum Corvette engine would exceed the numbers you are talking about. No
blowers, no nitrous, the SBC is known for the amount of power that can be
extracted from it. Streetable power - with the right setup a SBC can be easily
set up to peak in mid-range (exactly what you need in autocrossing). Even a
cast iron block only weighs about 50 or 60lbs heavier than the stock motors in
the Fiero, so setting that up is not that big a chore.
Neither of these would be an expensive conversion, as conversions go. I guess
my point is that the "I" class DG has come up could finally provide the Fiero
driver with someplace he could be competitive within the SCCA. . As a Fiero
nut myself, I have found that my marque is totally outclassed in every case
within the SCCA (except E-Mod in tube chassis form). So SM(2) could be the one
salvation for us. This car can readily accept most GM motors, either FWD or
RWD, and I know of more than one 500+ horsepower street driven Fiero.
So, I have hopes for SM - especially that it expand to SM(2). Of course, if
the SCCA would open their eyes (and minds) and simply class the driver instead
of the car, all this would be moot.
G
------------------------------
Jim Fossum <jfossum1@nycap.rr.com> wrote
> > In SM, the tires act as an engine power/money fuze.
> >What do you figure, roughly, that fuze is rated for, in power terms?
> Lets see, my FS Camaro puts down ~.65-.7g accel on "skinny" 245 tires.
Figure
> with bigger tires and suspension mods a RWD SM car can pull ~.8g. Next,
lets
> say on a typical course, there is some benefit to acceleration at the
traction
> limit up to about 60mph. This point is obviously debatable. There is a
law
> of diminishing returns here that will be highly course dependent, but even
if
> the advantage is smaller on some courses than others, a skilled driver
should
> be able to gain a (small) advantage.
>
> Then .8G at 60mph in a 3100 lbm car (reasonably achievable weight?)
requires
> 404 hp at the wheels. This seems reasonable, but I don't really see this
type
> of car dominating the class.
>
> Lets consider the extreme: A 2700 lbm AWD car at 60mph and 1.2g
acceleration
> requires 528 hp at the wheels. This equates to nearly 660 bhp at the
crank.
> I know of several 2.0 liter motors with big turbos making this kind of
power,
> but to get low turbo lag and good drivability as well, this could be an
> expensive proposition. You could transplant a 3.0l V6 into a Talon, but
this
> would probably mess up the weight distribution, so maybe a bored and stroked
4
> cyl with high compression ratio, a smallish turbo (using race gas of
course)
> and stratospheric redline, not to mention a beefed up drivetrain with
custom
> gearing, variable valve timing, and a rally car style anti-lag system for
the
> turbo.
>
> Sure, there may be more cost effective ways to make the car faster, but
once
> you've exhausted all of these (and so has your competition), you'll be
forced
> to go after more power to stay competitive.
>
> Jim Fossum
>
------------------------------
|