longhorn911

Wow - did everyone see the new 2023 Club Race rules change proposals that came out on 9/15? If you are an SPB racer, you should read them. One of the proposed changes could be one of the most impactful rules in the history of the SPB class if adopted:

SPB 8
Allow the 2000-2004 Boxster 2.7 liter in SPB at 2750 pounds minimum weight.
This should allow heavier drivers to enter this class and achieve close to minimum weight. The current 2.5 liter model has a factory horsepower of 201, and this later model is 217. All SPB rules would apply.

Here is a link the proposals if you wish to provide PCA with your comments on them. The deadline for comments is Oct 25.

https://pcaclubracing.org/2023-rule-proposals/

glbrighenti

Interesting.
what would be the motivation for this?
Are we running out of 97-99 cars in the market as they get old and eventually scrapped?
or they are just trying to increase supply of donor cars to lower entry barrier?

Strimdog

I'm asking myself the same question. I think this is a terrible idea and opens up a Pandora's box you can't close. Why would we create any more confusion and additional items to monitor? As of now it's hard enough. There will be a large group e-Mail sent to PCA explaining why in our opinion this is a bad idea and should not be considered. I would encourage all to respond to this. Whether you are for it or against have your voice heard.

longhorn911

Completely agree. Besides horsepower, there are other differences between the 2.5 and 2.7 cars and this would open up a large balance of performance can of worms. To date, the SPB class ruleset has remained very stable and it has generated the largest class in PCA racing. Introducing a whole new platform into the class would impact that in a big way. Just imagine the conversations about 2.5 vs 2.7 cars after every race. Plus, if one car turns out to be faster, we may have a new spending war on our hands. This would be a very drastic change with no upside.

Lemming

Seems to me that this has been proposed every year for the last few years. Bad idea, there are still plenty of cars and parts available

txhokie4life

The 2000-2002 have a base HP of 217hp

2003 and 2004 have base HP of 228hp due to various cam plus (it has the same cam chain tensioners, plus an electro-hydraulic cam lobe adjuster).

2000-2004 have redline increase from 6700 - 7200 RPM.

The transmission mated to the 2.7L has different gearing -- different pinion ratio I believe, and longer gears in 4th and 5th.

The DME is enhanced in 2003 and 2004 -- no idea if this would improve drivability -- but it does allow for the variocam plus.

There is different stability control packages through-out these years. No idea if that is a help or a hindrance.

Porsche also introduced cup holders and glove boxes during these years :-)

I think you would need a slightly higher weight increase for the 2003 and 2004.

trygve

I wrote a brief email indicating why I'm opposed to this proposal. I'd encourage others to do so as well, and soon! This is how our voices are heard. -> crrules (at) pca.org

I don't see the need for such a rule change -- there are plenty of 2.5L donor cars out there -- and it would open up all sorts of possible real or perceived imbalances, and would likely devalue 2.5L cars if the 2.7L is considered preferable. I'm glad @txhokie4life mentioned the 2003-2004 differences and even greater HP than is mentioned in the proposal. Now you're getting into even more combinations and need to compensate for the various differing advantages of the later model years.

The stated reason for the proposal is to allow heavy drivers to make weight. Is that a real issue worth opening this Pandora's box for? Plenty of folks are competing in cars that are 50-100lbs over weight on the scales; and at the other end of the spectrum, there are cars that run ballast, which indicates to me that a heavy driver just needs to get the max possible weight out of the car to be close to the minimum.

MJP911

This is an absolutely terrible idea for all the reasons noted above. All existing cars will become uncompetitive and it will definitely lead to a spending war. I suspect it may actually encourage some to leave the class - i.e., if they need to buy a new car to remain competitive, why not consider another class. Interesting that nobody (so far) on this tread has voiced support.

tgsmith4845

I also sent an email to rules@pcaclubracing.org voicing my opposition to this proposed rules change for SPB. I encourage everyone else to do the same. This one shouldn’t fly.

I’m interested in the other proposed change also, about allowing aftermarket gears. Does anyone know where these might be available? We’ve been rebuilding gearboxes the past few years and the stock gears are getting harder to find and prices are increasing. Would be good to have some stronger gears.

It’s good to remember that most of the proposed rules changes come from us, the members of PCA Club Racing. That’s an important part of any member organization. There’s a rules committee made up of some pretty smart folks that assess every proposed change and all comments submitted.

Nickshu

I agree about this being a bad idea for all the reasons stated above.

Additionally I spoke w/ Cervelli about the 2.7s and the proposed changes. He had experiences running them. He says the increased torque of the 2.7 made the 2.7 transmission short-lived during track use on the cars he ran it on as it's not really reinforced much over the 2.5, just different gears.
Also his oil starvation data on the 2.7 engine showed that it oil starves way worse than the 2.5, even with a deep sump. Accusump did not help much. A dry sump setup is needed to make them viable, in his opinion. Many of you may recall at one time he made a prototype dry sump setup for these engines 2.5 and 2.7.

Quadcammer

You would think with proper allocation of higher weights, you could fairly easily balance any performance differences between the cars. The gearbox I find to be moot as its longer in some gears and shorter in others and given the variety of tracks/corner speeds, its a wash in my experience (i've run them both in my car). 100lbs may not be enough to make up the difference, maybe its more like 150lbs, but if you can add sufficient weight to have the cars run essentially the same times, I don't see why the 2.5 cars would all of sudden be less desirable.

Opening it up to additional donor cars, additional transmission options (g86.00s are not easy to find for reasonable prices anymore), additional engine options, etc is not a bad idea, but seems i'm in the minority on that.

RennPart

The Spec Miata guys seem to have this figured out pretty well.

SPB 1 and SPB 2 just like the 944 guys..

Also open up Spec Cayman to allow BASE model 987.2's- I see the natural progression in club racing might be to go to SPC after SPB, but after all the engine failures it doesn't make SPC that appealing.

dan212

This is a question that has been raised before and quickly dismissed as a nonstarter. Very strange to see this come up again.

Bigger engine, different torque curve, different gearing - no idea of effect of DME.
This is not my definition of a Spec Class.

Quadcammer

I get it, but its hardly a big change in horsepower or torque. A hundred extra pounds hurts everywhere, not just in a straightline. I cant imagine it would be so impossible to reasonably balance the performance

BillC3

I sent an email voicing my opposition to #8 last week. No reply or acknowledgement, but wasn't really expecting one.

Gotta wonder who keeps proposing this. 100 pounds isn't enough to counteract the more-powerful engines in the later cars, and it seems like most SPBs are 50-100 pounds above the weight limit anyways.