This is not a solicitation to sell, just using this car as an example of how racers know what works.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors...=6255

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Honda Crx SI 1985 Csp Autocross race car

This si is the sister car to the one i built for the 96 scca pro solo 2 season that car driven by Neal Sapp went undefeated! This new car is BETTER than the original ,

NO RUST .This Honda is built from the ground up.

New .040 motor, brand new si transmission,shocks , springs ,bushings , hoses, fully adj rear sway bar,13x8.5 Panasports&lt;three piece&gt;w Hoosier So4'radials,$2500. Hytech cutom header w exhaust, interior is new , and the sunroof was professionally removed.HF close ratio steering rack and <FONT SIZE="10">aluminum rear drums</FONT>. Injected w TWM throttle bodies and Electromotive Tec 2 handle the fuel New Mugen Lsd in trans.

This car is a proven WINNER and locally undefeated
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Scott

 

There is undoubtedly some kind of agenda at work here but it escapes me completely.

K

 

No crap. Those rear drums were stock on the 84-87 CRX HF's. They are no longer made anymore by Honda and there are no more in any warehouses.

I still don't see the big deal though.

 

Yay, I'm familiar with that car. That being said, there really isn't much else I can contribute towards this thread.

Did they really have aluminum drums?

 

A couple of things that bother me about that auction:

1) I could be wrong, but werent all 1st gen Si's single color and DX's and HF's two-tone?

2) He mentions a "professionally removed" sunroof. when I asked about shaving my sunroof in CSP everyone got in a tizzy about it and said no way. can't tell from the pics, but it looks like there never was a sunroof.

Based on those 2 things, and all the HF "perfomance" items, it seems more likely to me (and would have been more sensible for him to do) that he took an HF and put an Si drivetrain in it and put an Si logo on the back. (a project that I'm helping a friend of mine do right now)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thumpu77 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Based on those 2 things, and all the HF "perfomance" items, it seems more likely to me (and would have been more sensible for him to do) that he took an HF and put an Si drivetrain in it and put an Si logo on the back. (a project that I'm helping a friend of mine do right now)</TD></TR></TABLE>

That's exactly what he did and yes--that is legal for CSP.

He technically didn't remove the sunroof I believe--he just used a DX chassis with a mix of Si and HF parts to create the lightest and fastest combo possible.

It would be a fun car. Maybe not the car to have for CSP, but definitely one of the top 3. The new MR2 and the older Miatas are still the cars to have for CSP IMO.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thumpu77 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
2) He mentions a "professionally removed" sunroof. when I asked about shaving my sunroof in CSP everyone got in a tizzy about it and said no way. can't tell from the pics, but it looks like there never was a sunroof.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
you can reskin a roof.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
There is undoubtedly some kind of agenda at work here but it escapes me completely.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i'm with oblivious.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thumpu77 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">1) I could be wrong, but werent all 1st gen Si's single color and DX's and HF's two-tone?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

No, '85 Sis were 2-tone, and looked nearly the same as non-Sis. I have 3 '85 Sis (though one is no longer 2-tone).

I happen to also like the finned aluminum drums (I have collected 3 sets), dating back to the racing Alfin rear drums for Triumphs. Don't forget early Datsun Zs came with finned aluminum drums.

 

I sold my brand new aluminum drums. They are over-rated.

 

This car is built and owned by Ben Schaeffer who has built several of Neal Sapp's championship winning cars including his Solo II National Champion car and his runoffs winning car. I have helped Ben build several of these cars over the years (including this one).

Ben knows what he is doing.

The aluminum drums are on the car to retain CSP legallity while minimizing weight.

 

My bad on the 2-tone.

All I was getting at w/ the sunroof was If it's an Si w/ a re-skinned roof it's illeagal for CSP, and if it's a DX / HF then the seller's lying about the car being an Si.

Either way buyer beware!!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thumpu77 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Either way buyer beware!!!</TD></TR></TABLE>

You are stupid.

http://www.speedtv.com/article...10135/

Ben Shaeffer is the car's owner/builder.

1984-1987 CRXs are listed on the same line in the CSP rules which means as far as the SCCA is concerned they are the same car. ANY 84-87 CRX part can be used on any other 84-87 CRX. Most all 1st gen. CSP CRXs start life as a DX since it is the lightest of the bunch. They then transplant all of the Si running gear into the cars. The car may not have come from the factory as an Si but to the people who would be buying this car, they know what the deal is and don't care.

 

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

You are stupid.

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

I dissagree. A "dx with an si swap" is not a "si," it's a "dx with an si swap." I would agree that listing it as a si is missleading if it started as a dx.

taking the sunroof out of an si is illeagal in CSP, so what the chasis is does matter. simply listing it as an si is missleading.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by drkarrow &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">simply listing it as an si is missleading</TD></TR></TABLE>

If its misleading to someone, they shouldnt be buying that car.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by drkarrow &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">taking the sunroof out of an si is illeagal in CSP, so what the chasis is does matter. simply listing it as an si is missleading.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I never said it didn't matter. Did I?

The bottom line is that an 85-87 CRX Si isn't worth a penny more than a DX/HF or any other G1 variant. IMO there is no reason to get bent out of shape because it "might be a DX with an Si motor" as opposed to a true Si. You aren't buying this car because it is an accurate, numbers matching CRX Si that will be an investment. You are buying it because you want a highly competitive CSP car and IN ORDER to build such a car out of a G1 CRX you NEED to mix and match parts from different trim level CRXs.

P.S. Si's weren't a single color until 1986. The 2-tone was on the Sis as well in 1985.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thumpu77 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">All I was getting at w/ the sunroof was If it's an Si w/ a re-skinned roof it's illeagal for CSP</TD></TR></TABLE>

its legal.

 

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

Thank you.

 

Hey is this car street legal? I'd like to buy it and drive it on the street. The Electromotive Tec 2 sounds like it would be fun to tinker with every morning before I take it to work.

Pat

 

The only way a 84-87 CRX Si would be legal to remove the sunroof (in a true Si) is if any 84-87 CRX Si did not come with a sunroof. Then you could remove it.

If the CRX Si came with a roof and there was no way to get it without one, then if you use a 84-87 Si body it must have the roof on it.

But, you can use a 84-87 Dx/HF body because it did not have a roof. Think of the sunroof on the Si model as a convertible top if it helps you to understand this. This is why on the 88-91 Si you have to use a HF/Dx/STD chassis because the Si body was only offered with a sunroof, thus you cannot "shave" it off. This is why SM has a specific rule written for this.

Does that help to understand chassis SP UD/BD a little better?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The only way a 84-87 CRX Si would be legal to remove the sunroof (in a true Si) is if any 84-87 CRX Si did not come with a sunroof. Then you could remove it.

If the CRX Si came with a roof and there was no way to get it without one, then if you use a 84-87 Si body it must have the roof on it.

But, you can use a 84-87 Dx/HF body because it did not have a roof. Think of the sunroof on the Si model as a convertible top if it helps you to understand this. This is why on the 88-91 Si you have to use a HF/Dx/STD chassis because the Si body was only offered with a sunroof, thus you cannot "shave" it off. This is why SM has a specific rule written for this.

Does that help to understand chassis SP UD/BD a little better?</TD></TR></TABLE>

You aren't entirely correct.

In the case of this car the rules DO NOT make a distinction between trim levels. The line reads 1984-1987 CRX. There is no separate entry for an Si vs. a DX. As far as CSP is concerned a G1 CRX is a G1 CRX regardless of badging, trim levels or options. What this means is that you can put an 87 Si bumper on an 84 DX and still be legal. If an 84 DX didn't have a sunroof but your 87 Si does you cannot remove the sunroof BUT you can chop the roof off of your 1987 Si and weld the entire roof of a 1984 DX on. Ben has done exactly this on at least one of the CRXs that he has built.

The second part to the UD/BD rule is that items need to be retained as an assembily wherever applicable or unless otherwise stated. The sunroof is part of the roof so to get rid of it you need to change the entire roof since the DX roof didn't have a plate welded into it - it was a complete, solid structure.

 

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

You aren't entirely correct.

In the case of this car the rules DO NOT make a distinction between trim levels. The line reads 1984-1987 CRX. There is no separate entry for an Si vs. a DX. As far as CSP is concerned a G1 CRX is a G1 CRX regardless of badging, trim levels or options. What this means is that you can put an 87 Si bumper on an 84 DX and still be legal. If an 84 DX didn't have a sunroof but your 87 Si does you cannot remove the sunroof BUT you can chop the roof off of your 1987 Si and weld the entire roof of a 1984 DX on. Ben has done exactly this on at least one of the CRXs that he has built.

The second part to the UD/BD rule is that items need to be retained as an assembily wherever applicable or unless otherwise stated. The sunroof is part of the roof so to get rid of it you need to change the entire roof since the DX roof didn't have a plate welded into it - it was a complete, solid structure. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Look at the 88-91 Civic listing. They don't list them separately either last I checked, yet an Si chassis is an Si chassis. There is even a ruling in a fastrack last year where someone wanted to do the roofskin yet was told that it is not legal to do.

I would certainly check with the SEB before I went filling in a Si sunroof. Everyone assumed that it was ok to do but in some circumstances it is not.

As far as bumpers, motors (including trannys as an attached piece), trim pieces, etc--you can mix and match whatever you want on the UD/BD line.

 

sure there are instances where someone would unknowingly break the rules, but do you ppl seriously think a nationally competitive and winning car would not be legal?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Look at the 88-91 Civic listing.</TD></TR></TABLE>

But we aren't TALKING about an 88-91 Civic/CRX. We are talking about an 84-87 and last time I checked the classification breakdown for an 88-91 had no bearing on the classification breakdown for an 84-87 and anyone who is building a nationally competitive car WILL know this.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">sure there are instances where someone would unknowingly break the rules, but do you ppl seriously think a nationally competitive and winning car would not be legal?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Especially since at the national level if you win you WILL get protested - that is a given.

The year that Ben and Neal won the Nat's their prize was a 12-driver based, 7 page protest of his car, challenging everything in creation right down to the size belt on the alternator. The SCCA sealed the car and followed it back from Topeka to Maryland. When they got it back to Ben's shop they tore it down, checked everything and found the car to be 100% legal. If there was an issue with the sunroof they would have caught it.

Ben then took the protest money that he received, returned most of it saying that it didn't cost that much for him to put the car back together and then used the rest to buy "Thank You" cards to send to all of his competitors who protested him. The card basically read:

"Thank you so much for protesting me and being a sore loser. Thank you also for showing the world that my car IS IN FACT legal and I didn't need to cheat to beat you."

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Evil Drew M &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The year that Ben and Neal won the Nat's their prize was a 12-driver based, 7 page protest of his car, challenging everything in creation right down to the size belt on the alternator. </TD></TR></TABLE>



Holy ****.

 

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



Holy ****.</TD></TR></TABLE>

welcome to the fun of ben's world..

I can vouch that this CRX is a legitimate, well-prepared car.. and as far as I know - and Drew and others apparently concur - it is 100% legal.. I've probably helped work on it at some point as well, before moving away.. Don't believe it? then don't buy it..