What does "Same line" in update backdate rule mean that line of hondas or the typed line "CIVIC 88-91" ?

I'm looking to swap motors in my 88 Civic, the car runs in EP. Can I only swap engines for other 88-91 Civics or any motor from the list of Honda's in the class?

 

in the rulebook, it's quite literally, either "on the same line" or not.

different line = no swapage of parts

 

Quite literally, the line printed in the rulebook.

This often has an effect on update/backdate allowances - in the case of 92-00 Civics, the DOHC cars, SOHC VTEC cars, and non-VTEC cars are all listed on different lines - thus you cannot put a DOHC motor in a base CX hatch.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Quite literally, the line printed in the rulebook.

This often has an effect on update/backdate allowances - in the case of 92-00 Civics, the DOHC cars, SOHC VTEC cars, and non-VTEC cars are all listed on different lines - thus you cannot put a DOHC motor in a base CX hatch.</TD></TR></TABLE>


Freaking SCCA, you think they would have learned by now to accept these cars into a class like Formula WC or something.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Littleton &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


Freaking SCCA, you think they would have learned by now to accept these cars into a class like Formula WC or something. </TD></TR></TABLE>

this is for autocross, specifically certain classes.

go play in SM or D/EM if you want to put the newer/cooler honda motors in old chassis cars.

 

That's what I thought. the PAX in EM stinks!

If I'm reading Mod class right it is only the wieght and engines cc's that class you.
Is this right?

Thanks

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Conernr1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">That's what I thought. the PAX in EM stinks!

If I'm reading Mod class right it is only the wieght and engines cc's that class you.
Is this right?

Thanks
</TD></TR></TABLE>

in a nutshell, true...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Conernr1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">That's what I thought. the PAX in EM stinks!

If I'm reading Mod class right it is only the wieght and engines cc's that class you.
Is this right?

Thanks
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Pretty much. There are a few other rules to follow, but the classing is based on weight and displacement.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Conernr1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">That's what I thought. the PAX in EM stinks!</TD></TR></TABLE>

:sigh:

PAX in EM does not suck. Getting a car optimized for PAX is teh sucky part.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Quite literally, the line printed in the rulebook.

This often has an effect on update/backdate allowances - in the case of 92-00 Civics, the DOHC cars, SOHC VTEC cars, and non-VTEC cars are all listed on different lines - thus you cannot put a DOHC motor in a base CX hatch.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I was just thinking about this earlier today. I can run my 99-00 EX in STS right along a 99-00 Si, with the exact same setup; with the exception of the B16. I throw a B16 in my car, so I'm now absolutely identical to the Si, and BAM! SM, here I come. I realise that this isn't the case for some model lines from other manufacturers, but I'm having trouble justifying the rule in this case.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EX_AutoXer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I can run my 99-00 EX in STS right along a 99-00 Si, with the exact same setup; with the exception of the B16. I throw a B16 in my car, so I'm now absolutely identical to the Si, and BAM! SM, here I come. I realise that this isn't the case for some model lines from other manufacturers, but I'm having trouble justifying the rule in this case.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not sure what you're complaining aboot....... if you want an Si, buy an Si.

IMO, the Ex is going to be faster on an autox course anyways, the Si's powerband is way too narrow.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EX_AutoXer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I was just thinking about this earlier today. I can run my 99-00 EX in STS right along a 99-00 Si, with the exact same setup; with the exception of the B16. I throw a B16 in my car, so I'm now absolutely identical to the Si, and BAM! SM, here I come. I realise that this isn't the case for some model lines from other manufacturers, but I'm having trouble justifying the rule in this case.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not identical. Si has ABS, different brakes, and some other small things.

The rule is in place to stop the same line of reasoning, but used with a lightweight base model (CX in the case of Civics).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm not sure what you're complaining aboot....... if you want an Si, buy an Si.

IMO, the Ex is going to be faster on an autox course anyways, the Si's powerband is way too narrow.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'll never be able to keep up with the EGs or EFs anyway, Si or EX. Actually, I just want the rear disks.


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Not identical. Si has ABS, different brakes, and some other small things.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

What I was thinking was that the small differences are all able to be changed, and consequently made identical, when running STS. I wasn't aware the Si came with ABS standard (since it was an option for the EXs).


<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The rule is in place to stop the same line of reasoning, but used with a lightweight base model (CX in the case of Civics).
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I hadn't thought of it in that context, just that my car can be made identical to the Si with the exception of the engine and rear brakes within the class rules (I forgot the brakes in the original post I made, which was really my point). Taking a CX and adding everything from the Si without all the pig weight would make a totaly different car. I'll go back to my corner now.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EX_AutoXer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'll never be able to keep up with the EGs or EFs anyway, Si or EX. Actually, I just want the rear disks. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Why?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EX_AutoXer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I wasn't aware the Si came with ABS standard (since it was an option for the EXs).</TD></TR></TABLE>

must have been an option on the Si as well. My '00 Si aint gots it

 

'99 and '00 Si Civics were not available with ABS brakes.

IIRC, one could only have ABS with an automatic EX.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Why?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I realise it's not going to be a huge performance increase, and I probably won't feel the effects on my braking at all. I've read in a few places that pedal feel is improved with the rear disks though (I think there was even a technical article on it in Road & Track.) It's mostly from a maintenance standpoint; I hate working on the drum brakes.

I recently changed them, and would have much rather thrown a set of disks on there than mess with those springs. I was also thinking that the disks would remove some unsprung weight, but haven’t found any evidence to back me up on that from searching.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mike P. &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">'99 and '00 Si Civics were not available with ABS brakes.

IIRC, one could only have ABS with an automatic EX.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Really? Thought they had the brakes from the GSR, ABS and all? Not that it matters.