Question of building up my engine.

[davekmoore]

-Autocross, what class? I don't understand what this is, please explain.
-Wheel to wheel racing or HPDE only, what class? I don't understand what this is, please explain.
-Must it be able to run on pump gas and if so, what octane? Fuel
-Must it run in a street car, (A/C, OEM alternator, col start driveability etc) ? Yes
-Do you have a shop in mind that is familiar with race BP series builds? Not really, just a shop that do many custom cars/show cars
205whp+ is pretty much a full race engine with cams that would probably never idle for street use. If I could build it then why not?
225whp+ so and the life expectancy begins to shorten. Perhaps 15-30 race hrs and you're looking at a $15-20K long block. I would love to live longer

You clearly have a great understanding of how it all works, I suggest you also pose these questions on miataturbo.net.

Emily, that is just evil

[Mr nanotech]

My advice is to do more research and reading first and then drive a normally aspirated mx5 as well as a turbo mx5. That will definitely help you decide what you want. The next thing you need to consider are the following questions:

-Will this still be my daily driver?
-How many track days do I realistically plan on doing per year?
-What the the total amount I want to spend on my car to achieve my goal?
-What is the maximum time frame I want to allow for my project?
-and possibly the most important- What do I want to achieve?

Don't take the trial and error approach. I've been there and it ends up with disappointment. I'm currently doing something with my car I should have done a long time ago and although I don't regret previous mistakes, It saddens me knowing if I had researched properly I could have had this done years ago and spent them enjoying my car rather than building it.

Working on cars is expensive and project cars are time consuming. The best piece of advice I can give is work out what you want before you start throwing away all your time and money. So take some cars for drives (put up a thread on the forum asking to drive a few examples) and then hit the books until you understand how what you want actually works too. You need a comprehensive view of what you are after.

Judging by your answers to the questions asked by another forum member, you have a lot to learn. Don't let that get you down, everyone has to learn at some stage. There is a world of knowledge on Miataturbo.net too. You should get on there and read every thread you can regarding turbo setups etc. HOWEVER, before you create a thread on there make sure you RESEARCH or you will get absolutely flamed.

[Lokiel]

My advice is to do more research and reading first and then drive a normally aspirated mx5 as well as a turbo mx5. That will definitely help you decide what you want:
:
HOWEVER, before you create a thread on there make sure you RESEARCH or you will get absolutely flamed.

Heed these 2 points.

As for MT.net, they don't hold back and will roast you if you ask a question that's already been asked and answered a million times already, particularly if it's right there in their FAQ so read that first and use their search facility, you'll find 95% of your answers already there.

Also, if you ask about doing something that's plain dumb, expect to get flamed too. For a good read and example of this, see http://www.miataturbo.net/engine-performance-56/mazdaspeed-miata-exhaust-question-70564/

[davekmoore]

I've got a bad feeling about this.

[Magpie]

I laughed so long and hard whilst reading that miata turbo link.

[Mr Morlock]

Who cares about legality? If you have a prang and its not declared on your policy then no payout and then there is the other car. If you have any property someone can go for that as well. If you are responsible person you do care.

[AntHarmer]

Who cares about legality? If you have a prang and its not declared on your policy then no payout and then there is the other car. If you have any property someone can go for that as well. If you are responsible person you do care.

That's not true and is a common misconception. The insurance company can't just deny a claim because your car is illegally modified. They have to PROVE that the accident was caused by, or attributed to by your illegal modification. As a basic example, if you run into the back of somebody, they are not going to be able to deny the claim due to you having darker than legal tint on your side windows.

Similarly, they cannot deny a claim because the police breath tested you on site and you blew over the limit, they would have to prove that being over the limit caused or contributed to the accident. You would be surprised how difficult it is to prove these things.

[TTT]

Who cares about legality? If you have a prang and its not declared on your policy then no payout and then there is the other car. If you have any property someone can go for that as well. If you are responsible person you do care.

That's not true and is a common misconception. The insurance company can't just deny a claim because your car is illegally modified. They have to PROVE that the accident was caused by, or attributed to by your illegal modification. As a basic example, if you run into the back of somebody, they are not going to be able to deny the claim due to you having darker than legal tint on your side windows.

Similarly, they cannot deny a claim because the police breath tested you on site and you blew over the limit, they would have to prove that being over the limit caused or contributed to the accident. You would be surprised how difficult it is to prove these things.

lol.. Sounds like a wonderful place that you live in. But it's different in the real world.

couple of months ago on this very forum someone posted about their BMW that was stolen and torched.
Insurance company denied the claim due to the fact he mentioned that he had replaced a worn factory shock absorber with an aftermarket equivalent.
I'm pretty sure the shock was the the cause of the car getting stolen then torched but he was denied.
Insurance ombudsman was called upon and he found in favour of the insurance company.

pretty simple (yet really shitty) rule... if it's not on your insurance policy, then it can be denied even if it was not the cause of whatever you're claiming for.
If it's an illegal mod, you won't be able to put it on your policy.
therefore, you turbo it, and crash and it's not on your policy, you're up that their brown creek without a stick with which to propel your floating device in a forward direction.

[AntHarmer]

Who cares about legality? If you have a prang and its not declared on your policy then no payout and then there is the other car. If you have any property someone can go for that as well. If you are responsible person you do care.

That's not true and is a common misconception. The insurance company can't just deny a claim because your car is illegally modified. They have to PROVE that the accident was caused by, or attributed to by your illegal modification. As a basic example, if you run into the back of somebody, they are not going to be able to deny the claim due to you having darker than legal tint on your side windows.

Similarly, they cannot deny a claim because the police breath tested you on site and you blew over the limit, they would have to prove that being over the limit caused or contributed to the accident. You would be surprised how difficult it is to prove these things.

lol.. Sounds like a wonderful place that you live in. But it's different in the real world.

couple of months ago on this very forum someone posted about their BMW that was stolen and torched.
Insurance company denied the claim due to the fact he mentioned that he had replaced a worn factory shock absorber with an aftermarket equivalent.
I'm pretty sure the shock was the the cause of the car getting stolen then torched but he was denied.
Insurance ombudsman was called upon and he found in favour of the insurance company.

pretty simple (yet really shitty) rule... if it's not on your insurance policy, then it can be denied even if it was not the cause of whatever you're claiming for.
If it's an illegal mod, you won't be able to put it on your policy.
therefore, you turbo it, and crash and it's not on your policy, you're up that their brown creek without a stick with which to propel your floating device in a forward direction.

Actually the "World I live in" is working for an insurance company, not listening to anecdotal second-hand evidence on an internet forum. About as "real world" as it gets. There is no "pretty simple" rule about having a whole claim denied because one part of your car was aftermarket. Thanks for the enlightening post

[TTT]

Actually the "World I live in" is working for an insurance company

I'm sorry to hear that.

[AntHarmer]

Actually the "World I live in" is working for an insurance company

I'm sorry to hear that.

Again, thanks for the enlightening post. It must be tiring making arguments backed up by zero fact, and when faced with real evidence reverting to immaturity and/or personal attacks. Bravo

[KevGoat]

Actually the "World I live in" is working for an insurance company, not listening to anecdotal second-hand evidence on an internet forum. About as "real world" as it gets. There is no "pretty simple" rule about having a whole claim denied because one part of your car was aftermarket. Thanks for the enlightening post

Also worked (very past tense) in the industry.

... the insurance company only had to show that the contract had become invalid. Any alterations not adhering to the contractual agreement can be cause for the contract to be deemed invalid.

The modification didn't need to be proven as a cause or even show any contribution as the agreement was nullified.

Was one way...don't know if still valid...

Even in the past, some insurance agreements allowed more flexibility than others ...

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk

[AntHarmer]

... the insurance company only had to show that the contract had become invalid. Any alterations not adhering to the contractual agreement can be cause for the contract to be deemed invalid.

The modification didn't need to be proven as a cause or even show any contribution as the agreement was nullified.

Was one way...don't know if still valid...

Hi Kev, they still try this trick! But it is so hard to get away with. Not sure whether you worked in the industry pre 1984, but they are now bound by The Insurance Contracts Act.

The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) limits the circumstances in which your claim can be denied as a result of disclosure:

1. The insurer has a duty to clearly inform you of the nature and effect of your duty to disclose. If they have not done this they cannot rely on your non-disclosure to refuse a claim.

2. If you failed to disclose something when the policy was taken out, or at renewal, the insurer cannot reject your claim unless it can show that it would have refused to provide you with insurance if it had known the missing information.

If, for example, the insurer would have given you insurance cover had it known about a previous driving offence, but would have charged a higher premium, then the insurer cannot reject on the basis of the non-disclosure (although it can still require you to pay a higher premium).

If you failed to notify the insurer of something that happened during the period of cover under the policy, the insurer can only rely on your non-disclosure to refuse or reduce your claim if it can demonstrate that it has been prejudiced by your non-disclosure.

[KevGoat]

Yeah I was working for them indirectly during the dark ages 1974 - 1981

That clause makes all the difference.

I can recall a lot of people making claims only to find the company invalidate their policy, then to rub salt in to the wound they would be refused or charged higher premiums on grounds their previous policy had been canceled!!

Was a real rort!


Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk

[AntHarmer]

Yeah I was working for them indirectly during the dark ages 1974 - 1981

That clause makes all the difference.

I can recall a lot of people making claims only to find the company invalidate their policy, then to rub salt in to the wound they would be refused or charged higher premiums on grounds their previous policy had been canceled!!

Was a real rort!


Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk

That would definitely suck! I would say that most of the "rorting" is now done during the assessment stage rather than at claim lodgement time….