Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Autocross and Open Track Parts Swapping in Stock Classes

Questions about this come up often enough on this list that I figured I would post the answer from the rule book (got the SCCA National Solo 2001 Rules right in front of me.)

First off, we must all remember the fundamental rule of SCCA regarding vehicle modifications: If the rules don't say you can, you can't!

13. Stock Category

"...Except for modifications authorized below, Stock Category cars must be run as specified by the factory [not the dealer - JC] with only standard equipment defined by these Rules. This requirement refers not just to individual parts, but to combinations thereof which have been [or are required to be (option pakcages) - JC] together on a specific car..."

"...Option package conversions may be performed between specific vehicles of a particular make and model [if they are on the same line in Appendix A - Stock Category - JC] but only between configurations from within a particular model year. Such conversions must be totally complete and the resultant car must meet all requirements of this section."

Appendix A - Stock Class
Stock Class G
Ford
Contour SE, V6 (95+)
Contour SVT

Back to the question of whether we can swap individual parts from any other Contour onto an SVT (or vice versa) and still be legal in G Stock (or H Stock for the Ztec Contours).

The answer is NO, for two reasons:

1. Since the base, SE, and SVT are considered different option packages (or models) you have to swap everything from the donor car that makes it a base, SE, or SVT onto the recipient car and remove, from the recipient car everything that makes it different from the donor car.

2. The Contour SE and SVT are on different lines in the Appendix so swapping parts between them is not allowed. And the Ztec Contour is in a completely different class (H Stock) so, again, swapping parts is not allowed.

A third question comes up from time-to-time that goes something like this: "The factory specifies different components (springs, anti-roll bars, etc.) on vehicles based on the options on the vehicle, therefore I should be able to swap those components around."

Well, if you have documentation from the factory that specifies the option and component combinations, then feel free. Otherwise, you're protest bait and this exact issue has been sucessfully protested numerous times in the Pony car class (F Stock.)

Hope this clears things up.

That's what I thought, John.

BTW, I was the subject of an unsuccessful protest attempt on my 85 Mustang GT the year I won the division. I had stock original springs, but some yahoo decided my car sat lower than his and that I must have shortened springs. Wrong, but it was a pain to prove. I'm about as non-mechanical as they get, which is why I run stock class.

Problem is some do cheat so hence the Protest rules.

John,
Thank you for your post using the rule book.
I didn't have mine with me so I couldn't give the exact wording.
Andy

As for being the subject of protest rules..
I'm with ya there. Happened to me once in an old 'vette.

Of course now if you want to do this, you could always go to a junkyard and collect a good amount of "stock" springs and mix and match until you get the best setup for your car. People who do this professionally do this with many things. They call this "optimizing". Personally anyone who has the time and money to do this, needs to be racing in some other category. But there are always a few like this.

The way I've seen the rules applied in protest committee's has been if the option was available for that year and the car was in the same class it was a non-issue. Which leads me to a question

Why would you want SE springs in an SVT????

There was an article in SCC (I think) a year or two ago about a showroom stock Neon series. The teams would go through bundles of parts looking for ones that most closely matched and were closest to the factory specs, etc. Rotors, springs, engine pieces, etc.. It was interesting to read how the selected the parts and stuff. Adding good "stock" parts seemed to increase reliability and longevity for things like rotors. People that would do that in autocrossing have a bit too much time on their hands..



Dunno.. IIRC, SVT and SE springs are the same, just different struts.

SVT sprinbgs have a lower rating than SE springs and with the SE springs you have several optional load ratings based on options which would change the ride height of the car. Lower car = lower center of gravity + greater negative camber.

hope that clears it up as to why I would want to do this.

Thanks for the rule clarification as well.

For the 98+ SE/LS V6 MTX's and SVT's the front springs are the same. Rear springs on the Ls V6 MTX and SVT are the same, rear springs on the SE V6 MTX and ATX are the same.

Check out this message: http://www.coldair.org/archives/0011/msg00059.html

> The teams would go through bundles of
> parts looking for ones that most closely
> matched and were closest to the factory
> specs, etc.

This is called "Parts Bin Blueprinting" (PBB) and has been done in SCCA Improved Touring, Formula Ford, etc. for years. To give you an idea of how effective it is: On a 2.4L Datsun L6 prepared for the ITS class, this kind effort leads (along with headers, ignition, and blueprinted stock carbs) leads to a 50% horsepower gain on an otherwise stock engine. Its also very expensive to build an engine this way because of the man hours spent collecting, measuring, assembling, measuring, disassembling, etc.

To get 200 hp from a Datsun L6 using PBB makes an engine cost over $7,500.00. You can get the same horsepower levels in an assembled engine, using a cam, piston, intake, header package from Nissan Competition for $3,000.00 total. Unfortunately, the cam, pistons, and intake are illegal in ITS.

That's a good example of how rule making bodies really screw things up when they try to reduce the cost of racing.