Just perhaps, "We" could petition, with "Phillips'" permission?, SCCA for a 4L or 4.2L limit, in GT 2, for the MG RV8 ? As I see it, this is our best effort for SCCA , in GT2. 2 cents, roverman.
Art, sounds like a nice objective, but would the additional displacemenet really help much with the restrictor plate we are forced to run? Certainly would be easier to souce engines at those more common displacements and you could use the 4 bolt main block without sleeving it down. We did well at our last race, but were well slow of the laps being turned by some of the GT3 cars, so there is room for negotiation with the SCCA about displacement or restrictor plate size. As we are the only RV8 currently running in the country as far as we know there's precious little data for them to evaluate and they know that our car has more potential and is only just beginning development. I think the parts cost and availability issue would be the most reasonable argument as to increasing the displacement.
As Curtis well pointed out, the Tigers get to run 4.3L ? Restrictor carb should be enough restriction. "This" model of MG , came with a 3.9/4.0L, yes ? = best argument for size increase. SCCA is very adept at slowing cars down. This car needs a lot of work, to achieve being "too fast". Onward, roverman.