PDA

View Full Version : IT Car classifications now online w/stock HP



Jake
06-05-2004, 10:11 PM
On my homepage at www.racerjake.com (http://www.racerjake.com) is a link the EXCEL file. I've added many HP numbers and a weight/hp factor (nice to sort by), but admittedly there are many omissions and errors. I’d like us all to be able to use this as a reference.

If you can correct an error or add any missing HP numbers to the classified cars – please use this thread to do so and I will update the file. If you can include the cell row # it will make my job even easier.

Eagle7
06-06-2004, 01:01 AM
Row 29.
I could be wrong on this, but I'm guessing the 84-85 ITS RX-7 HP is wrong (at 160). The 86-88 HP was 144, while the 89-91 was 160. All 86-91 can use the 160 HP engine, but I assume the 84-85 can't, since it's a different spec line. Don't know what the correct number is.

Also rows 29 and 30 have the compression ratio and the wheelbase shifted by 1 column. Don't think I could run pump gas with that 95.7 compression ratio.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

[This message has been edited by Eagle7 (edited June 06, 2004).]

paulydee
06-06-2004, 08:16 AM
For the GSL-SE RX-7 (`84-`85 ITS RX-7) the factory HP was 135. Would it be possible to add a column to factor in estimated HP in full IT trim? It seems like you would get a more acurate HP to weight ratio.

------------------
Paul D'Angelo
73 ITS CENDIV
Indy Region
http://www.iridiumracing.com
http://www.iridiumracing.com/Header3.jpg

Jake
06-06-2004, 09:04 AM
Thanks! I'm afraid adding the est. HP will turn this thread into a flame war before you say the words "flame war". Keep the corrections/additions coming!

chuck baader
06-06-2004, 09:33 AM
Jake, believe the hp rating on the 92+ 325 BMW is 198. Excellent joy.

------------------
Chuck Baader
E30 ITA under construction
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar

Jake
06-06-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
Jake, believe the hp rating on the 92+ 325 BMW is 198.

I doubt it - the new 325's aren't even that high. (stock HP numbers - no IT estimates please)

oanglade
06-06-2004, 10:41 AM
Jake, thanks for going through the trouble.

Here are a few additions that:

ITA Honda Civic DX(sedan & HB)(88-91) -> HP=92

You have Honda CRX Si 88-91 and 89-91 on 2 different lines. The second gen CRX was out from 88 to 91.

ITC Honda Civic HB / Sedan (84-87) -> HP=60

Great job!


------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Greg Amy
06-06-2004, 11:11 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the hp rating on the 92+ 325 BMW is 198...</font>

Actually, it's 189hp. - GA

jhooten
06-06-2004, 11:37 AM
For the 82-86 Toyota Supra

82: 145hp. 83: 150hp. 84: 160hp (5-speed), 150hp (Automatics. This is basically the 83 motor). 85/86: 161hp.

Kazoo
06-06-2004, 12:15 PM
Great job on the list!

Stock horsepower for the 89-91 CRX Si was 108 not 92 as you have in the list. I believe the 1988 model was the same...but it might have been a few less...but considering the updating/backdating...108 is the number to use.

TypeSH
06-06-2004, 12:34 PM
The 97-98 Prelude should read 195hp.



------------------
David Rierson
#53 ITS Honda Prelude
Texas Region

Jake
06-06-2004, 03:28 PM
Ony - I can't find the listing for the 89-91 CRX Si. Do you mean the 89-91 Civic Si?

All updates done, but PLEASE give me line numbers with updates - it makes my job much easier.

Bill Miller
06-06-2004, 04:21 PM
Jake,

Ln. 291 and 292 Rabbit and Scirocco 1.6, 75hp

Ln. 222 and 223 Scirocco 1&2 1.7, 76hp

Ln. 217 Jetta 1.7, 76hp

Ln. 216 Golf GT/GL/GTI, 103-105hp (GTI numbers, but that's all that matters, since you can build any version into a GTI)

Ln. 218 Jetta GL/GLI, 103-105hp (see Golf note)

Ln. 211 Celica ST, 97hp

Ln. 166 Honda Accord 1.7, 75hp

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Greg Gauper
06-07-2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by oanglade:


ITC Honda Civic HB / Sedan (84-87) -> HP=60

Great job!





The 84-87 Civic HB and CRX's (carb'd w/CVCC head) both made 76 HP stock. The 60HP number is for the high MPG HF car.

oanglade
06-07-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Greg Gauper:

The 84-87 Civic HB and CRX's (carb'd w/CVCC head) both made 76 HP stock. The 60HP number is for the high MPG HF car.

Actually, I just noticed that the one listed on the spec line is the 1.5 liter car, so yeah, that one classified is the 76HP 'DX' or 'S' model, which sounds like a fantastic car for ITC, by the way.

There was no "HF" Civic, only the CRX, (which came in '85 with a 1.5 motor, while the '84 std. CRX had the 1.3, both made about the same power, but the 1.5 was "torquier".)


The 84-87 Honda Civic 1.3 Liter, 8 Valve, 4-speed carb w/CVCC (A.K.A. standard Civic HB) had 60HP.

The HB DX and the 'S' were carb'ed 1.5 with 12 valves (cloth seats, 5 speed) - 76HP

The Si came in '86 and it had the 1.5 FI, 12 valve (sames as CRX Si) - 91HP

My appologies for the confusion.


------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

nlevine
06-07-2004, 11:25 AM
Jake - Very nice - I had done a similar spreadsheet of ITA cars for my own use. Here's a few more for ITA (the Z3 and Stratus classified as of May 1, the 318ti as of Jan 1 I believe).


Car; Race Wt.; Stk HP; Wt/HP
--------------------------------
BMW Z3 1.9; 2,675; 138; 19.38
BMW 318ti; 2,750; 138; 19.93
Dodge Stratus; 3,000; 132; 22.73


[This message has been edited by nlevine (edited June 07, 2004).]

dyoungre
06-07-2004, 12:58 PM
Line 86 - '91 Escort GT - 2440 lbs

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

dyoungre
06-07-2004, 01:19 PM
Line 200 (86 Saab 900 16v) - 125 HP

Line 202 (Saab 99 EMS) - definitely NOT 125 HP from a 2.0L 2v!!! Not sure what correct HP is, though.

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

Jake
06-07-2004, 02:12 PM
Keep 'em coming guys!! This is great stuff. I'll do another update tonight.

Greg and Ony - can you restate all that stuff with line numbers.

oanglade
06-07-2004, 02:24 PM
Jake,

It all boils down to:
Line 252 = 76 HP



------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Greg Gauper
06-07-2004, 03:42 PM
Lines 252 & 254.

They use the same motor.

Joe Craven
06-07-2004, 04:16 PM
Jake, here are some requested updates.
line 107, hp of the V6s were about 105 (2.6 was 106(8) and early 2.8 was 105


line 157 Capri Stock hp was 100hp in 1971. It dropped by the 1974 year but... it doesn't matter.

Quickshoe
06-07-2004, 06:15 PM
Thanks JAKE!

Jake
06-07-2004, 08:08 PM
No problem. All updates up to here are in.

Eagle7
06-07-2004, 10:55 PM
Line 30
ITS 86-91 RX-7 stock HP = 160.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

MMiskoe
06-07-2004, 11:01 PM
for quick comparisons, it is really easy to just take stock flywheel #'s and call them wheel numbers. 15% loss through the driveline = 15% flywheel gain through IT mods. Not exact, but you're never going to get exact numbers. Skewed for the Wankels wankers, they respond much better to exhaust mods than the up & down guys.

Nice work.

Mike Spencer
06-08-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by MMiskoe:
...Skewed for the Wankels wankers, they respond much better to exhaust mods than the up & down guys.

Nice work.

Jake -

No "mods", but thanks ALOT for going to the trouble! (I always knew there was SOMETHING wrong, with me. I just never realized I was skewed! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif )


------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
1986 RX-7 Build In-Progress
1990 RX-7 Convertible In-Driveway

924Guy
06-08-2004, 03:01 PM
Yow! I'm sure glad I checked in - you've got the ITS output listed in ITA for me. Line 122, the ITA (2.0L) 924 makes 115hp stock. The ITS 924S (2.5L) is listed correctly at 158hp.

Cheers,

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

lateapex911
06-08-2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by MMiskoe:
for quick comparisons, it is really easy to just take stock flywheel #'s and call them wheel numbers. 15% loss through the driveline = 15% flywheel gain through IT mods. Not exact, but you're never going to get exact numbers. Skewed for the Wankels wankers, they respond much better to exhaust mods than the up & down guys.

Nice work.


Here's the problem with that kind of thinking....

A few examples...the Honda guys know that some models gain big, while others are just stones, no matter what you do to them.

My RX-7 for example came with 100 HP from the factory, and can make (reportedly) 123 or so at the wheels. (It realy needs the exhaust mods...it is choked in stock form) Off the top of my head, that's about a 23% gain. But note that it is crank (SAE) vs. WHP...

The CRX had, what 108 at the crank stock? And puts down 126 or so at the wheels. Thats about 17% or so. Again, crank vs. WHP.

The E-36 ...stock, SAE crank is 189... WHP is 223. Thats 18%...(and crank improvement is more like 32%.... )

And note that if we were talking crank SAE vs. crank SAE, the gains would be even stronger.

Now other cars are not such over acheivers, and after all the mods, and the drivetrain tricks, end up putting down numbers close to stock, which is a gain to be sure, but a much lesser gain.

It is just not safe to assume that you can apply a single factor and have any real idea of whats actually happening.

The bottom line though, is, on the track, stock numbers don't really matter...whats coming out of the tire tread is what counts.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 08, 2004).]

Jake
06-08-2004, 09:29 PM
Jake - nobody is disputing the fact that stock HP isn't going to perfectly relate to WHP. While it's not gospel, it is important information that is undisputable and we can get for all cars. Please lets try to keep editorializing to a minimum in this thread - we can open another one to debate. Keep the correction/additions coming. All updates in to this point.

lateapex911
06-08-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Jake - nobody is disputing the fact that stock HP isn't going to perfectly relate to WHP. While it's not gospel, it is important information that is undisputable and we can get for all cars. Please lets try to keep editorializing to a minimum in this thread - we can open another one to debate. Keep the correction/additions coming. All updates in to this point.

Absolutely, Jake. I finally was able to open the file and its an incredible peice of work. I just get scared when the 15% number gets trotted out as it is not that meaningful, and is kinda what got us here in the first place. Wanted to respond to that item, thats all.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Scott Nutter
06-08-2004, 10:44 PM
Cool list. I wonder if you could add a columns for drive type front/rear, engine placement, and or factory weight distribution?

Geo
06-08-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Jake - nobody is disputing the fact that stock HP isn't going to perfectly relate to WHP. While it's not gospel, it is important information that is undisputable and we can get for all cars.

Actually, it is disputable. For starters it's pretty well known the Bimmer's stock bhp is understated. Further, there have been some well publicized cases in recent years of manufacturers overstating their bhp.

I'm not trying to take away from your work in any way. Let's just understand the nature of the data we are working with.

Knestis
06-09-2004, 09:10 AM
Feb 04 FasTrack updated the years of the MkIII Golf (your line 218) to include '94-97 models.

K

fiestadude
06-09-2004, 03:21 PM
Jake,

Ford Fiesta (Not Festiva) 63 whoppoing HP from the factory.

Good work on this, nice to have a quick link to this info.

Thanks,



------------------
JJ
#62 ITC

Soflow1
06-09-2004, 06:08 PM
Jake,

Great work on the Excel spreadsheet! I've got a couple modifications for you.

Oldsmobile SCX (cell D46) reads 155HP the Quad4 W41 is actually rated at 190HP stock.
Oldsmobile Calais (cell D47) reads 160HP once again the Quad4 W41 is rated at 190HP stock.



------------------
http://www.southernflowinc.com/rods/MR2T5-2.jpg

gran racing
06-09-2004, 09:43 PM
The Fiesta's HP number is really interesting! 63 HP? Jake, what are we doing wrong then?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

ITSRX7
06-10-2004, 09:29 AM
Line 15: Contour non SVT - 170hp
Line 11: SOHC Neon ACR - 132hp
Line 41 and 42: 300ZX's - 160hp
Line 66: Volvo - 168hp
Line 118: 88 Fiero V6 - 135hp

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

itafiero
06-10-2004, 01:29 PM
Nice job, thanks!

The ITA Fiero 1985-87 and 88 all had the same HP, 135.

The ITB Fiero 1984-87 had 92 HP. The '88 ITB Fiero has 98 HP stock.

The disc brake for the '88 ITB is wrong. They have the same suspension including brakes as the '88 ITA.

Super Swift
06-11-2004, 07:44 PM
Jake

I am a little reluctant to give you all my information that I have found on the IT cars simply because it has taken me a long time to compile it all. I have however asked my Dad and brother for advice on this subject and both have given me the go ahead.

Where my data comes from-

My dad collected Road & Track from around 1964 to 1997 in this collection most IT cars are included. In 1987 Road & Track went down hill and stopped covering low end cars as well. So from 1988 to present I get most of my information from msn.com and cross reference as best I can will Road & Track. I am only telling you this so you trust the data I give you.

Often in your data you are giving cars more power than I do. I am taking this as a guide to me to do more research on these cars so I will not include them in what I give you. I am only going to give you what you do not have and where I have found higher HP ratings.

I hope this information is useful to you.

ITS
Line 33- 150hp
Line 35- 170hp
Line 49- 150hp
Line 50- 175hp
Line 55- 188hp
Line 56- 135hp
ITA
Line 69- 115
Line 72- 129
Line 73- 125
Line 76- 115
Line 78- 135
Line 84- 110
Line 87- 119
Line 88- 119
Line 95- 102
Line 102- 110
Line 105- 102
Line 107- 110
Line 108- 101
Line 110-119
Line 111-110
Line 113-140
Line 116-113
Line 119-140
Line 120-86
Line 127-116
Line 134-96
ITB
Line 139-116
Line141-129
Line142-129
Line143-102
Line151-90
Line153-98
Line157-102
Line158-102
Line159-92.5
Line162-115
Line164-102
Line165-100
Line166-102
Line171-104
Line176-110
Line177-98
Line180-98
Line181-97
Line182-100
Line183-102
Line186-97
Line187-97
Line189-90
Line190-102
Line191-75
Line192-105
Line193-75
Line194-96
Line200-72.5
Line201-95
Line202-115
Line203-128
Line204-115
Line205-115
Line206-100 my old car http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
Line207-70 this is the one time I will say you have it to high because I am sure you do.
Line208-97
Line209-96
Line210-95
Line212-116
Line213-105
Line215-75
Line217-90
Line228-114
Line229-98
Line230-105
ITC
231-62
232-96
233-72
234-81
235-70
236-88
237-67
238-75
239-94
240-96
241-45
242-1780lbs (2003 GCR) 90hp
243-76
245-58
246-70
247-70
248-95
249-68
251-52
252-63
253-67
254-70
258-68
259-80
260-70
261-65
262-68
263-70
264-65
265-62
266-50
267-81
268-62
269-80
270-65
271-70
272-96
273-69
274-67
275-69
276-70
277-77
278-80
280-64
281-77
282-64
283-77
284-58
285-60
286-70
287-88
289-58
290-73
291-68
292-60
294-78
295-78
296-55

Jake
06-11-2004, 09:52 PM
This is ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE!! You have done an amazing job. This is not “my” spreadsheet, it is all of ours. Anyone can take it, copy it, use it, or whatever. I’m glad you decided to share all your work so we can all benefit. If you want credit or a link on my website, let me know!

I’ve added all your changes and the list is looking very complete. I’ve color coded the classes and added another worksheet named “sorted” which lists all cars in order of their stock hp/wt. I encourage all to scan through it and take note of the company different cars keep. I think many things speak for themselves.

Before anyone says anything: yes there’s more to the story than stock power/weight, different cars get different benefits from IT engine mods, manufacturers under/overestimate, I can’t get to minimum weight, my car has a solid rear axle and no aftermarket support, etc. etc. Again, PLEASE let’s keep debate and chatter out of THIS thread so we can use this thread to just continue to refine the data. Let’s open another thread if we want to draw conclusions, argue, etc. Thanks!!!

CaptainWho
06-11-2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
This is not “my” spreadsheet, it is all of ours. Anyone can take it, copy it, use it, or whatever.

I'm playing around with a MySQL database and some PHP scripts that will allow the data to be imported from .CSV files, then queried from a web site. It's easy to set up a table definition that will work for a straight import using the LOAD DATA syntax and I've got that working. I need to make a script that will install a (new) set of data.

From that point, it's easy to do the PHP scripts that will query the table and display the results, as long as it's not fancy with tons of options and things.

The tricky part is converting the table structure to make searching easier (like converting 'vehicle' to 'make', 'model', 'start year', and 'end year'). I'm working on this but it's going a little slowly because I don't have a ton of time to put on it right now.

When I've got it working, I'm going to put it up on our web site under the GPL, so anyone can use it. Using it, though, requires having MySQL and PHP running within a web server.

The plan is to get it up on a web page. Unfortunately, my ISP wants a lot more money than I'm currently paying for an account that will let me run my own PHP code. So I'm hoping that once I post the code, someone will host it on a public server and let us all know where it is.

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing (http://www.nutdriver.org)

Super Swift
06-11-2004, 11:24 PM
Jake

I feel combining all the classes in the sorted file distorts the picture. If your going to sort them have 4 files one for each class. Just because the Mustang in ITS is down with the front ITB cars in power to weight does not mean it needs to be moved out of ITS. (I know you didn’t say it. But the data...)

Let people compare them on their own merits within their own classes.

TO ALL:

This is just a quick look at a car’s possibilities. Do not make ANY judgments. The real picture is far more complex.

Jake
06-12-2004, 06:46 AM
That would be great to get this into a proper html. I would also like to see it so people could sort by HP, displacement, weight, manufacturer, or class.

SS - as I said, there is more to the story than the data you see. But honestly, the Mustang you mention may be good candidate to move to ITA at a slightly elevated weight. Would a 145lb, 3100lb Mustang V6 dominate ITA in your region? Or might it bring more domestics and potentially new blood into IT? Mustang are cheap and plentiful and mostly absent from IT. In fact I think we should take a LONG look at ALL the ITS cars that are lower than the top ITA car, and consider what would happen if they were to be moved to ITA (potentially with a bit of extra weight)

Jake
06-12-2004, 07:30 AM
Looking at the sorted list again:

How many of the ITS cars below the ITA Integra (line 44) could work in ITA?

How many of the ITA cars below the ITA CRX Si(line 103)could work in ITB?

How many of the ITB cars below the ITC Ford Fiesta (line 206) could work in ITC?

Diane
06-12-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by CaptainWho:
The plan is to get it up on a web page. Unfortunately, my ISP wants a lot more money than I'm currently paying for an account that will let me run my own PHP code. So I'm hoping that once I post the code, someone will host it on a public server and let us all know where it is.



I can probably help you with this. Drop me a line at diane *at* mathermotorsports.com if you're interested.


Diane
#21 ITB Escort

Bill Miller
06-12-2004, 12:23 PM
Jake,

Line 195, Plymouth Horizon TC3 1.7, hp should be 75 (same as the Horizon, and the 1.7 VW's, as it's a VW motor).

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

CaptainWho
06-14-2004, 03:10 PM
Hey, folks,

There seem to be some "problems" with the .XLS data file that are making it really hard to parse. In particular, a number of the "Vehicle" fields seem to be missing spaces between the make and the model (e.g., most of the Mazda entries in ITA). Is this in the original or is it my copy? I'm reading the files with Microsoft Works instead of Excel.


------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing (http://www.nutdriver.org)

Jiveslug
06-17-2004, 04:47 PM
Hey Jake. Nice job! I think I have one correction for you and one question. Line 248 wheel diameter should be 13." Also, I thought the base Geo Storm was ITB as well as the GSi. Is it truly an ITC?

Jive

Eric Parham
06-24-2004, 09:09 PM
Line 195, Plymouth Horizon TC3 1.7, hp should be 65 (not 76, it's the 1.7 VW motor, but carbuerated for a loss)

Ln. 216 Golf GT/GL/GTI, 102-105hp (102 was the max for cis-E, 105 was the max for digifant)

Ln. 218 Jetta GL/GLI, 102-105hp (102 for the best 86-87 CIS-E, 105 for the best iteration of Digifant)

Ln. 291 and 292 Rabbit and Scirocco 1.6, hp should be 76 (not 75, i know, it's just 1 hp, but every little bit helps http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Ln. 222 and 223 Scirocco 1&2 1.7, 71 (not 76, less than the 1.6 with the stock log-type exhaust, 71 is for CIS, only 65 when carbureted (Rabbit only), although the same engine in the 83 Rabbit pickup was rated at 78 with CIS and a unique factory dual-downpipe exhaust)

Ln. 217 Jetta 1.7, 71 (not 76, see Scirocco 1.7)

Eric Parham
06-24-2004, 09:25 PM
The VR6 GTI/GLX (lines 63/65) should not say "DOHC". They are actually 2xSOHC, as VW finally admitted in 1996/7 when they deleted the "DOHC" from the valve cover and literature. Only some of the newest 2004 VWs have a real DOHC VR6 (for a total of 4 cams).

Edit: Okay to disregard this post since the original error is in the ITCS.

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited June 24, 2004).]

Bill Miller
06-24-2004, 11:43 PM
Eric,

I think some of the Alfas are the same way, DOHC, but still only 2 valves per cylinder. I know most people think DOHC means 4 valves per cylinder, but it doesn't have to. And then, you've got the 3-valve configurations (Nissan, etc.)

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake
06-25-2004, 08:22 AM
Eric, thanks for the VW fixes, but I think you gave me the wrong row numbers. I don't want to change them unless I'm sure I'm doing the right one. Either give me the right row numner, or the complete vehicle name in the classification.

Bill + Eric + others,

Stuff like DOHC/SOHC wheel size etc were errors that came from the GCR. If you really want to fix those errors, I'd suggest contacting the SCCA.

Eric Parham
06-25-2004, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Eric,

I think some of the Alfas are the same way, DOHC, but still only 2 valves per cylinder. I know most people think DOHC means 4 valves per cylinder, but it doesn't have to. And then, you've got the 3-valve configurations (Nissan, etc.)




Bill, not to confuse the issue, but I believe that the 4-cyl ALFAs truly are DOHC. DOHC is not defined by the number of valves, but rather by the number of cams operating any valve for a given cylinder. That is, if one cam operates the only intake valve, but a different cam operates the only exhaust valve in that same cylinder, then it truly is a DOHC irrespective of only 2 valves per cyl.

The differentiation between SOHC and DOHC becomes very important in IT (where only stock spec cams are permitted), since various tolerances can be used to advantge in most DOHC cases to obtain better valve overlap, which is not possible with a SOHC.

Eric Parham
06-25-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Eric, thanks for the VW fixes, but I think you gave me the wrong row numbers. I don't want to change them unless I'm sure I'm doing the right one. Either give me the right row numner, or the complete vehicle name in the classification.


Jake, sorry about that. Here are the correct line numbers for the 71 hp CIS-injected VW 1.7 engine:

220 -- Jetta 1.7 -- 71 hp (not 76)
222 -- Rabbit 1.7 -- 71 hp (not 76)
225 -- Scirocco I 1.7 -- 71 hp (not 76)
226 -- Scirocco II 1.7 -- 71 hp (not 76)

For the Golf 1.8 and Rabbit 1.6, perhaps we shouldn't bother with the corrections of +/- 1 or 2 since sources do vary.

Also, I'm now questioning my own conclusion regarding the hp for Plymouth's use of a carbuerated version of the VW 1.7. The VW version did make just 65 hp when carbuerated, but Plymouth may have used a different carbuerator (and/or cam).

Thanks,
Eric

Bill Miller
06-25-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:

Bill, not to confuse the issue, but I believe that the 4-cyl ALFAs truly are DOHC. DOHC is not defined by the number of valves, but rather by the number of cams operating any valve for a given cylinder. That is, if one cam operates the only intake valve, but a different cam operates the only exhaust valve in that same cylinder, then it truly is a DOHC irrespective of only 2 valves per cyl.

The differentiation between SOHC and DOHC becomes very important in IT (where only stock spec cams are permitted), since various tolerances can be used to advantge in most DOHC cases to obtain better valve overlap, which is not possible with a SOHC.


Eric,

So, the VR6 would still be a DOHC. It's not really a true 'V' configuration, as it has only one cylinder head. Also, I know there's a 24v VR6 out there, but I don't believe it has 4 cams (how the hell would you get them all in one head?).


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake
06-28-2004, 03:52 PM
Eric, I’m going with 70bhp for the TC3 via this website: http://www.allpar.com/omni/turismo.html

As for the SOHC, DOHC, you are both right. The VR6 24V only has 2 camshafts total, but can benefit from cam phasing. One cam operates 12 intake valves, one operates 12 exhaust valves.

http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/...e_packaging.htm (http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/engine/tech_engine_packaging.htm)

BTW - the spreadsheet is updated and I've added class/make/model filters

Eric Parham
06-28-2004, 05:23 PM
Interesting. I did not know that about the 2004-up VR6 24V (that it only had two cams). As for the 1994-2003 VR6 12V, one cam operates the 3 intake and 3 exhaust in one bank of cyls, and the other cam operates the 3 intake and 3 exhaust in the other bank of cyls. Therefore, SOHC (x2). In this case, it does not matter that they managed to form the 2 cyl heads as a single head, as no valve phasing can be used to advantage since each cam is still operating only the valves for the 3 cyls in its own bank.

Eric Parham
06-28-2004, 05:36 PM
Quote from same article:

Valve Gear

The first generation VR6 has 2 valves per cylinder, single overhead camshaft (sohc) serving each bank just like any conventional 2-valve V6s, although the 2 camshafts are so close that they look as if a twin-cam design.

122 Vega
07-05-2004, 11:52 PM
Line 95: Cosworth Twin Cam

Horsepower should read 110hp. Everything else is dead on.

Britt

------------------
4 weeks till graduation!
Maybe I should start my term paper...

Vintage IMSA Cosworth Vega #0515

ITA Cosworth Vega #0109 in progress

[email protected]
www.geocities.com/kiva75

Jake
07-06-2004, 10:45 AM
Thanks!! All updates to here are in.

Ron Earp
08-12-2004, 07:07 AM
The Jensen Roadster specs in the list need some correction:

Wheelbase = 92 in
13" wheel diameter
140hp not 144hp

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey

grjones1
08-12-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by gran racing:
The Fiesta's HP number is really interesting! 63 HP? Jake, what are we doing wrong then?

Dave,
That's 63 HP on a motor that was already 10 years old, and forced into the environmental protection age with an airpump that rivaled an AC compressor, among many other removable smog devices, timing that was so retarded you could start the engine with a lawnmower pull rope, and I won't even begin with the header and exhaust system configuration. Just to set the record straight.
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 12, 2004).]

ITANorm
08-13-2004, 03:19 PM
Jake -
Not to damage our position, but . . .
Based on update / backdate, the ITA MR2 should be 115HP. That was the rating on the '88 - '89 cars after they improved the fuel map, changed the injectors, and improved the header.



------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

Ascona1973
08-14-2004, 09:47 PM
Line 125 - Opel GT, listed as 102 hp, but that is pre-'71 over-inflated GM rating, therefore it's SAE gross hp. True rating is 90 PS, or about 88 hp. This is correct for 1968-1970 models. For 1971-1973 models the rating is 75 hp. We have to work very hard to get an honest 105 hp....

Line 181 - Opel Sedan, listed as 90 hp, but in fact 1971-1974 models are 75 hp, and the 1975 EFI models are 80 hp.

Line 262 - Opel Manta, listed as 75 hp, which is correct for 1971-1974 models. 1975 models have 80 hp.

Bob

[This message has been edited by Ascona1973 (edited August 14, 2004).]

Ron Earp
08-22-2004, 06:20 AM
Another update - 95% of the Jensen Healeys out there have 4 speed boxes. The rulebook lists 5 speeds, but these are not common, only produced during the last year and only for part of that production run. The 4 speed has the following ratios:
3.12,1.99,1.295,1.00.

Also, valve sizes - 95% of the heads out there have 35.56mm intake and 30.86mm exhaust. There are big valve heads too, but these are uncommon and I've not located one yet nor specs for it.



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Jake
08-22-2004, 09:38 AM
Updates are in. BTW - I'm just keeping track of HP - if there are errors in the GCR in any of the other info, you should contact the SCCA about them.

Ron Earp
08-22-2004, 11:02 AM
Sorry, did not know.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!