Honda Says They Won't Compete in NASCAR

[YSSMAN]

An interesting decision made by Honda Racing recently poped up. Unlike their Toyota rivals, Honda has said they will not compete in NASCAR, and managed to completely write off the series in the process...

Honda has no plans to move into NASCAR stock car racing, according to Robert Clarke, the president of the Honda Performance Development, reports GrandPrix.com. Clarke also took a subtle jab at NASCAR: "Honda's racing historically has been focused on technology," he said. "Having not been directly involved with NASCAR, I think it's probably unfair for us to say that their technology is dumbed-down or at a lower level, but it's clearly a different kind of technology."

...Ouch, that hurts my NASCAR pride...

 

[toyomatt84]

I actually agree with that. Toyota had to restrict their engine's output to get it to the level of the Domestic vehicles. I like NASCAR, but I can actually face the truth.

 

[Layla's Keeper]

I actually agree with that. Toyota had to restrict their engine's output to get it to the level of the Domestic vehicles. I like NASCAR, but I can actually face the truth.

Ummm....... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Toyota had to struggle, fight, and hire American motor gurus like Ed Pink to make their pushrod carbureted 358ci engine competitive in Craftsman Truck, and they're just now on an even keel with their Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford competitors.

On top of that, they offer the TRD engine as a crate package for local/regional latemodel and stock car series (such as USAR, ASA, or ARCA) and absolutely nobody runs it due to the fact that it's ridiculously expensive, has poor parts support, and is woefully uncompetitive compared to an off-the-shelf Draime, Malcuit, Kistler, Wind-it-Tight, Hutter, or any other of a myriad of available racing small blocks.

Toyota has the budget to make their engine work in the big show, and has more "factory" teams than any of the big three in Trucks. If all the reports hold true, they'll have more "factory" teams in Cup as well. That's the only way they can have a fighting chance in the Cup playground against the built-in database of information and common knowledge of the Chevy SB2.

On the local/regional level, Toyota will NEVER be a competitor.

 

[YSSMAN]

I dont think anyone in their right mind would just wake up one day and say, "I think I want to run a Toyota Camry in ARCA, that would be awesome!" NASCAR is still an American dominated sport, and its going to take the younger generations to make Toyota popular.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

Something i've thought for years. No offense to NASCAR fans out there, but in all honesty, stock car racing has to be one of the lowest forms of motorsport out there, especially from a technology stand point. The fact that atleast 4 people on my street (I do live on a highway I should add, with an oval track less then 20 minutes away) have "entry level" stock cars sitting in their garage that they built themselves tells you something about the technology involved.

On top of that, they offer the TRD engine as a crate package for local/regional latemodel and stock car series (such as USAR, ASA, or ARCA) and absolutely nobody runs it due to the fact that it's ridiculously expensive, has poor parts support, and is woefully uncompetitive compared to an off-the-shelf Draime, Malcuit, Kistler, Wind-it-Tight, Hutter, or any other of a myriad of available racing small blocks.

Well DUH. Its a relativily new engine on the NASCAR scene, and like most things new to the automotive industry, it takes time for part support and price drops. You named off competitors who have already grown roots in the industry, give Toyota the same amount of years all the others have had, and then comment on who is better. It would be the same if a new competitor joined off-road truck racing, and then saying they weren't as good as Toyota, or had the same part support, when its obvious that someone who's been around longer then another will have a stronger and better hold in that genre of racing.

 

[dougiemeats]

Something i've thought for years. No offense to NASCAR fans out there, but in all honesty, stock car racing has to be one of the lowest forms of motorsport out there, especially from a technology stand point. The fact that atleast 4 people on my street (I do live on a highway I should add, with an oval track less then 20 minutes away) have "entry level" stock cars sitting in their garage that they built themselves tells you something about the technology involved.

I wouldn't call stock car racing a low form of motorsport. Racing doesn't have to be at the technological level of Formula 1 to be enjoyable. Though I'm more of at sports car/F1 guy myself, I do come from a small town with a dirt track. Though the racing is not technologically advanced, its definitely enjoyable for the folks here.

As for Honda, its probably a good idea that they are not trying to get into NASCAR at this time. I'm not against it, but I could only imagine what reaction it would get if two foreign makes enter the series.

 

[Layla's Keeper]

Having been involved in circle track racing (albeit open wheel - specifically ISMA and MSA supermodifieds) for most of my life, I'll tell you straight-up that it's a total misconception that there's a lack of technology in stock car racing.

True, most any old guy can pull a GM G-body out of the junkyard, drop in a 305, do a bit of cutting, welding, painting, and catalog ordering, and end up racing in a class like Sandusky Speedway's "Pure Stock" division. (Sandusky, for the record, is my home track).

But when you start talking Late Models, then you're in a whole different ballpark. A late model chassis is an offset kissing cousin of an SCCA Trans Am car, with sophisticated four/five link rear suspension and wishbone coilover front. These chassis, built by companied like Port City, Dillon, Howe, and Lefthander, aren't chalked out on a garage floor, either. CAD/CAM processes, computerized welding, magnafluxing, most anything you can use to design a racing car is used to create these beasts too, it's just that the formula for the machine is different.

Look at LMP. As they've taken away ground effects, traction control, active suspensions, introduced driveline restrictions, bodywork dimension restrictions, gurneys, air inlet restrictors, and so on down the line in the name of limiting technology to reduce speed and cost, the cars have become more expensive due to the law of reduced returns. The teams invest more to get smaller gains because that's all that's left on the table.

The same is said in stock cars. The rules only allow for certain carburetors, intakes, and engine layouts. Travel back 30 years, and those engines produced 400-500hp. Now they make 700+. The minimum weight rules haven't changed much, but the cars are stiffer and the weight is lower in the chassis for better handling. The suspension rules haven't changed, but continued development of the geometry, materials, components, and application has produced lap times fully 3-5seconds quicker on average than 10 years ago.

3-5seconds on a 1/2mile oval is a lifetime to gain in ten years of research.

Technology is not limited to electronic fuel injection or overhead cams. In fact, considering that not since the OFFENHAUSER has a twin-cam engine dominated USAC Midget racing, I'd say that ohc is a bit of bunk as far as the claim of "high-tech" is concerned.

So, next time you want to buy into the arrogant belief that American circle track doesn't require technological progress or advanced technological application, I suggest you reconsider the ultimate in stock car technology - the Outlaw Late Model.

 

[JohnBM01]

Call me crazy, but I wouldn't call NASCAR as a low-tech series. I also agree that it isn't an F1-style technological powerhouse. I usually say I dislike NASCAR, but I do watch races every now and then. Why? Because I like racing. Nothing like cars dominating a track or seeing racers compete among themeselves trying to be top dog. Then again, it's probably a good thing for NASCAR to be low-tech, since you don't have to pay so much to maintain cars and such. (Set me straight if I'm wrong) It probably cost much less to build and maintain a decent "stock" car team from wind tunnel to track... than how much it costs to build and maintain a decent sportscar or Formula one team from wind tunnel to track.

As for Honda not being a part of the series, some look at it as "NASCAR would be dead to have two non-American series compete in the highest class." I mean, Honda already races in certain series where technology is pretty much eminent. Those include Formula One, their Dome/Mugen effort in Super GT, and the IRL of course. Only place they aren't really dominating is sportscar racing, in which I don't think they share much interest in (which is a shame). Other than that, my first intent was to say that Honda would up the competition. I just wouldn't want things to be like "oh, us American car lovers have to fend off the Japanese brands in a 35 race season." USA vs. Japan, whereas Japan is playing America's game. No, I wouldn't want to see that happening because I know where it's going to end up. It's sad that Honda didn't want to take part in NASCAR and take on the domestics as well as its Japanese rival, Toyota. I am Mr. "accepts all competition." I'm just not "Accept All Competition" at the expense of the sport. People will want to see Rockingham return, Darlington return, and rebuild North Wilkesboro (why not rebuild Riverside? I heard there was a plan set up last year). The series has changed, and people would REALLY be up in arms if Toyota and Honda were at Daytona taking on America's Big Three.

So I guess Honda's racing efforts in America will have to be with motorcycles and Indy cars. Wherever Honda wants to go, that's fine with me.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Good thing Honda decided not to race with Accords fitted with V8s wise decision by Honda to stay out of criticism; now one can only imagine how pathetic Toyota will be, and if they win somehow, the reaction from the American public. A import maker winning NASCAR? Nope. Some stuff are best kept American. Toyota will just be a dirty spot in the NASCAR history.

 

[dougiemeats]

I'm agreeing with JohnBM. For us spectators, when it comes down to it, we just want to watch a good race, no matter the technology involved. But, I can also see Honda's perspective in the matter. While there are some that race because of their love for the sport, many manufacturers sees racing as a chance to showcase their technology. Honda obviously does not feel that their involvement in NASCAR will showcase their technology the way they want it to.

I don't have a problem with NASCAR. To many fans, racing is racing. But in this case, the manufacturers and fans have different views on the issue.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I am glad honda stayed out of NASCAR. The more I learn about NASCAR, the more I dislike it. Some of the rules in there go completely against some things that are common sense in other types of racing. The cars are wastefull too, they run V8 engines when they could make the same power with a V6. They run positive camber on the cars, and thats completely oppisite of what years or experience proves. Another thing, the cars aren't very pretty to look at, and watching an F1 race is one hell of a lot more exciting than watching cars go in a circle. Some may argue that I am merely stating my opinion, but I am comparing the facts, regardless of what I think.

 

[Layla's Keeper]

Perfect Balance, let me ask you a question; If you're running only left turns, how is positive camber degratory on the LEFT FRONT?

Secondly, NASCAR did have V6's. Back in the 80's the Busch Grand National series used V6's to separate the series from Winston Cup. However, it was found that it was cheaper for the BGN teams to run the 358ci V8's with a compression ratio limiter than it was for the manufacturers to develop series specific V6's.

The V8's aren't wasteful. In fact, they're incredibly efficient for being 5.7L carbureted V8's. Without the restrictor plates, the engines produce roughly 700-800hp, and often run up to 6mpg at race speed without the plate (13gallon tank, 2mile track, 35lap fuel window).

Show me one naturally aspirated V6 that can match that number, and then show me that it can be produced cheaply enough that everyone from Joe Schmo at Mudlick Raceway (south of Cincinatti, Ohio, actually) up to Ray Hendrick can afford to run them competitively, and then I'll believe that the 358ci V8 is wasteful.

Now, as far as a NASCAR race being dull or a NASCAR Cup car being unattractive, I can agree with you for the most part, but that's entirely personal opinion. Honestly, I haven't seen a pretty F1 car since they had wide tracks, low noses, and flush sidepods.

But, again, that's opinion, just as it's your opinion that NASCAR stockers are ugly, so we've established the opinions and you haven't presented FACT ONE that can't be reasonably disputed by anyone with a brain and a little real knowledge of motorsport.

Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

 

[amp88]

Show me one naturally aspirated V6 that can match that number, and then show me that it can be produced cheaply enough that everyone from Joe Schmo at Mudlick Raceway (south of Cincinatti, Ohio, actually) up to Ray Hendrick can afford to run them competitively, and then I'll believe that the 358ci V8 is wasteful.

...and one that can do it reliably...

 

[Perfect Balance]

Secondly, NASCAR did have V6's. Back in the 80's the Busch Grand National series used V6's to separate the series from Winston Cup. However, it was found that it was cheaper for the BGN teams to run the 358ci V8's with a compression ratio limiter than it was for the manufacturers to develop series specific V6's.

After doing some research, I have to agree that running a V8 engine was cheaper, BUT not better. So, they were geting the same power with a V6 engine, which would be more fuel economic. As a race team, they should be willing to use a few thousand bucks to win a race, any little thing helps. Look at a Formula 1 engine. They are going to start using 2.4 Liter V8 engines producing 700+hp. Yes they use more fuel (the formula V10 engines use 4mpg), but they are running at more than 18,000 rpms. Drive that car at around 8,000 rpm, and you would have a huge increase in MPG compared to a NASCAR engine. And then, by not taking that car to its full potential, and holding back, you will have just increased the life of that engine by a LOT. Those engines can run at full rpms for hours. I have to say, they are expensive, but NASCAR could produce a less reliable engine for a cheaper amount, since they don't need 24hour 18,000 rpm capibilities. They could even go so far as building a 3.0 liter V10 with 900+ hp. These formula one engines run at only 4mpg, but the increase in speed and loss of weight would benefit the cars greatly, as weight reduction is the most powerful weapon a car can have, it improves all of a car's points.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think youre missing the point here Perfect... NASCAR is supposed to be based in the "real world" in which we all exist, hence the term "stock car." It may be backwards thinking here in the US, but F1 isnt appealing to some people because they can't relate to it. You can't go out an buy Shuey's Ferrari at the dealer, but you can go and buy something similar to Jr's Chevrolet (can't wait for the 2008 RWD Monte Carlo!)...

I really don't understand the arguement about engines youre making either. Going V6 or V10 in NASCAR is really against the mentality of the whole sport. Assuming that you know about the history of NASCAR, you would know that the sport can be traced back to Moonshine running is the Southeastern United States, where the "Good ol Boys" were running hopped up Model A's, Hudson Hornets, Chevrolet Bel Airs, etc. Most of the cars simply used beefed up suspensions and modified V8s, as they were usually running up and down the dirt roads of Gerogia, North/South Carolina, etc.

...Fast forward to the more modern era of NASCAR in the 1960s, just as Factory support began to show up in the sport. All of the cars were street-based models, many of which were available for purchase in NASCAR street trims. Thus models like the Chevrolet Chevelle SS, Ford Torino Talladega, Dodge Charger Daytona, and Plymouth Roadrunner Superbird were born. They all used versions of street engines varying in size from 426ci up to 454ci, and made just shy of the 500HP mark in street form.That was the appeal to many people back in the 1960s. You yourself could go to the local dealer and buy yourself a street stock car.

Considering that the current 358ci design can push up to 10,000 RPM on tracks like Pocono, and get somewhere in the range of 6-7 MPG running at a near constant pace of 190-200MPH at a track like Daytona is rather impressive as well. The engines usually hold up pretty well, although the longest race is "only" 600 Miles. I'm not completely sure if they reuse engines in NASCAR, I think some teams do and others do not, but I know you can buy used engines from the teams occasionally.

I suppose its a difference of preference and history when it comes to the comparisons between NASCAR and F1. I myself prefer NASCAR, ALMS GT and GTS classes, and SCCA racing as many of their cars are production-based, have some ammount of "reality" built in, and is something I could participate in realistically. F1 is great and all, but it just isnt the same thing. Sure, 2.4L 800+HP V8s are going to be great to see and hear, but I'd much rather be playing with 700+HP 5.8L V8s that I could build in my garage without spending $100 Million in development costs.

 

[GT4_Rule]

....V10 is not stock car racing....

....as well as V6s.....

I havent heard of a V6 that can produce over 700hp, naturally aspirated and can run for hours at 190+mph and edge the 10000rpm mark.

And economical isnt in NASCAR dictionary btw. Those engines run at better efficiency than the F1 engines!

But I do hope that NASCAR would stop using leaded fuel...I heard that they still use lead in their gas; what a major source of pollution!

 

[VNAF Ace]

NASCAR will switch to unleaded gas in 2008.

http://www.nascar.com/2006/news/headlines/cup/01/20/nascar.fuel/index.html

As for pollution... The amount of pollution from 43 race cars is nothing compared to the amount of pollution from the thousands of regular cars that fans drive to races and other sporting events.

 

[Perfect Balance]

I think youre missing the point here Perfect... NASCAR is supposed to be based in the "real world" in which we all exist, hence the term "stock car." It may be backwards thinking here in the US, but F1 isnt appealing to some people because they can't relate to it. You can't go out an buy Shuey's Ferrari at the dealer, but you can go and buy something similar to Jr's Chevrolet (can't wait for the 2008 RWD Monte Carlo!)...

I really don't understand the arguement about engines youre making either. Going V6 or V10 in NASCAR is really against the mentality of the whole sport. Assuming that you know about the history of NASCAR, you would know that the sport can be traced back to Moonshine running is the Southeastern United States, where the "Good ol Boys" were running hopped up Model A's, Hudson Hornets, Chevrolet Bel Airs, etc. Most of the cars simply used beefed up suspensions and modified V8s, as they were usually running up and down the dirt roads of Gerogia, North/South Carolina, etc.

...Fast forward to the more modern era of NASCAR in the 1960s, just as Factory support began to show up in the sport. All of the cars were street-based models, many of which were available for purchase in NASCAR street trims. Thus models like the Chevrolet Chevelle SS, Ford Torino Talladega, Dodge Charger Daytona, and Plymouth Roadrunner Superbird were born. They all used versions of street engines varying in size from 426ci up to 454ci, and made just shy of the 500HP mark in street form.That was the appeal to many people back in the 1960s. You yourself could go to the local dealer and buy yourself a street stock car.

Considering that the current 358ci design can push up to 10,000 RPM on tracks like Pocono, and get somewhere in the range of 6-7 MPG running at a near constant pace of 190-200MPH at a track like Daytona is rather impressive as well. The engines usually hold up pretty well, although the longest race is "only" 600 Miles. I'm not completely sure if they reuse engines in NASCAR, I think some teams do and others do not, but I know you can buy used engines from the teams occasionally.

I suppose its a difference of preference and history when it comes to the comparisons between NASCAR and F1. I myself prefer NASCAR, ALMS GT and GTS classes, and SCCA racing as many of their cars are production-based, have some ammount of "reality" built in, and is something I could participate in realistically. F1 is great and all, but it just isnt the same thing. Sure, 2.4L 800+HP V8s are going to be great to see and hear, but I'd much rather be playing with 700+HP 5.8L V8s that I could build in my garage without spending $100 Million in development costs.

Thank you for taking your time to explain things well, I think you deserve some rep.

I see why NASCAR uses V8 engines instead of other engines now.👍

 

[JohnBM01]

Oh, and if people want to talk about NASCAR going to Hell, it can only go to hell if Ferrari or Aston Martin or somebody joined NASCAR (end of the world, right?) with Front/Rear-Wheel drive cars.

Do you think Honda can come up with some new sorts of technology if Honda stayed in NASCAR? Or would they be allowed to under NASCAR sanctions?

 

[YSSMAN]

The France family runs a pretty tight ship in NASCAR, so I really don't know what innovations Honda could make to make their engines, cars, etc. faster. Most of the supposed techniques that may be used have probably allready been used before, illegally of course.

...I'm all for the use of unleaded fuels, going back to the notion that these cars should be based more on stock cars. But for anything else to change, its not going to happen anytime soon. The next step would maybe be electronic fuel injection, but even that is a stretch.

 

[Schrodes]

NASCAR will switch to unleaded gas in 2008.

Can you still buy leaded from the bowser there? The Aus gov't started phasing out leaded here in about '84. A few years ago they got rid of leaded all together and introduced lead replacement petrol (LRP) which is also gone now. If you have a car that used leaded petrol you have to put an additive in the tank every time you fill up or put stainless and titanium valves and guides in your head so it can run on unleaded (which is what I have done although it runs smoother with premium).
The V8 Supercars have used premium Shell for years but are changing this year to a new Shell petrol with 5% ethanol and 100 octane rating.

 

[GT4_Rule]

As for pollution... The amount of pollution from 43 race cars is nothing compared to the amount of pollution from the thousands of regular cars that fans drive to races and other sporting events.

Well, Im just glad that they will switch...I mean, that should've been done many years ago. And when I said pollution, I meant the lead going into the atmosphere...as well as CO2, of course.

But for anything else to change, its not going to happen anytime soon. The next step would maybe be electronic fuel injection, but even that is a stretch.

Hmm...Im wondering, why? Isnt electronic fuel injection more effective than carbureting?