PDA

View Full Version : The "Potential ITC Cars That Aren't Classed" Thread



Catch22
07-25-2004, 11:19 PM
Since some folks believe that there's a bunch of potential 1.5 to 1.8 liter cars out there that could be seen in ITC, lets put together a list.

If we come up with some good ones I'll write the letter(s) requesting classification.

I know there was a Nissan Sentra 4 speed that was very similar to the Civic Standard back around 1990 or so. My brother used to have one and actually chose it over the Civic. With the SeR as a ptential parts donor(?), this could be a cheap and effective ITC car.
Problem is that I haven't been able to fish up any information on it. I think it was called the Sentra S (seems there was an "S" on my brothers trunk lid).
I'll keep looking, but if anyone has any info please share.

Any other potential chassis???

Catch22
07-25-2004, 11:51 PM
I actually found *most* of the info on this car (at MSN of all places). Looks like a good ITC car and from what I can tell it isn't classed anywhere.

89-90 Nissan Sentra Standard
1.6 Liter
90hp/96tq
4 Speed (cant find ratios)
2156lbs
9.4 Compression
Front disc/ Rear Drum (cant find sizes)

The hp and tq look very good for an ITC car but the 4 speed tranny will slow it down (assumption since I havent seen the ratios, but 4 speeds in base model cars like this are typically B-A-D). A spec weight of 2250 to 2300 puts it right in the ITC p/w ratio range the board appears to be working with.

I'd consider building one as it looks good on paper to me. Which in my mind makes it a good candidate for classification request. Of course, there might not be any aftermarket support at all for this car...

Thoughts?

Catch22
07-26-2004, 12:12 AM
Here's another one. Although this is one of those things that falls into the "Its an OK ITB car but if you threw some lead in it it'd be a good ITC car" category.

90-93 Mazda Protege DX
1.8
103hp/111tq
5 speed (ratios-?)
2388lbs
8.9 compression
Brakes - ?

At 2375 its a decent looking B car. At 2575 it looks kind of like the New Beetle in ITC. At any rate it probably needs to be classed *somewhere.*

Honestly I can't believe this car isn't classed. There's thousands of them out there dirt cheap and that 1.8 mazda motor is a really nice powerplant.

Knestis
07-26-2004, 09:10 AM
Neglected Asian shitbox C candidates...

Suzuki Esteem
Hyundai Accent
Mitsubishi Mirage DE
Toyota Corolla

Not much aftermarket performance part support but they are cheap, cheap, cheap.

K

Jake
07-26-2004, 10:22 AM
What about all the cars that are in ITB that really should be in ITC. Cars that at least someone in the past has built, but are not run because they should be in ITC?

Mark LaBarre
07-26-2004, 10:37 AM
I'd like to run the wifes RSX-S in ITC....

Knestis
07-26-2004, 11:54 AM
By the time it's eligible, it'll probably be listed in A. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Jake
07-26-2004, 12:02 PM
I got a silly one - why limit ITC cars to 5yr old models? There is no place in Showroom Stock to run these low powered models. I think the Scion xA and XB would make great ITC cars.

Greg Krom
07-26-2004, 12:05 PM
The VW Fox from the early 90's would probably be a decent ITC candidate. It had a detuned 1.8, 4 speed with really crappy gearing, 13" wheels and as I recall it was rather heavy.

I owned one of these fine machines (major sarcasm) and it was defintely slower than my previous Rabbit GTI and my brothers 1.7 Rabbit. It also didn't have the nice handling of the rest of the VW's of the day.

Catch22
07-26-2004, 02:22 PM
Good ideas guys.

What I intend to do is compile a list of candidates and pick the best 3 or 4. I'll write letters requesting classification for those cars.

The point of this being that people are alot more likely to build a car thats already classified, so how many folks are just skipping over the Sentras and VW Foxes because they can't find them in the rulebook.
I haven't figured out the average age of the currently classified ITC cars, but I'd guess that its easily 15 to 20 years old. Thats not healthy for the class.

I've got some mid-90s gas mileage focused Honda Civic coupes (the CX hatch is already classed) on my list as well. On the surface they look like a good ITC fit.

Jake
07-26-2004, 03:02 PM
Here's a few more from the 90's:
Dodge Colt
Mazda Protege (1.5L)
Mazda 323
Mitsubishi Mirage
Hyundai Excel
Hyundai Accent
Toyota Tercel
Toyota Paseo

p.keane
07-26-2004, 04:04 PM
Jake, I think the Paseo would be a killer, I believe it had 100 hp stock.

planet6racing
07-26-2004, 04:19 PM
How about the old beetle? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

bhudson
07-26-2004, 04:31 PM
Old Beetle has been classified in the past, not sure if it still is. Saw one at Kershaw and VIR a few years back.

Even though it appeared nicely built, it was - not surprisingly - really slow.

gsbaker
07-26-2004, 05:27 PM
Let's go the other way with this.

Assuming we are talking about 20+ pounds per HP, how about my two ton wagon (with dogs), or my neighbor's 23' long, armor-plated SUV--three tons, easy. Token motors in both.

Yeah, let's hear it for the high mass crowd (vehicles, that is)! Anyone out there with a '65 Buick Roadmaster?

Gregg

Quickshoe
07-26-2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
I've got some mid-90s gas mileage focused Honda Civic coupes (the CX hatch is already classed) on my list as well. On the surface they look like a good ITC fit.

Catch22,

How about a 96-00 Civic HX coupe (the high mileage 1.6 SOHC)? 4th and 5th are taller than 1:1.

I have a FSM for the car, was originally going to attempt to get it classed, got sidetracked with another project. Really close to going FP with a MR2.

What do you think?

Geo
07-26-2004, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
...so how many folks are just skipping over the Sentras and VW Foxes because they can't find them in the rulebook.

Well, the B12 Sentra you're talking about is already classified in ITB. Only the 89 is listed, but that's easy enough to correct if someone wants to build one.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Catch22
07-27-2004, 01:12 AM
Been doing some digging and I've come up with what appears to be some good ITC candidates. Granted, I'm missing gear ratio and brake information and have no idea what the aftermarket support looks like, but these are cheap, mass produced cars built after 1990 that could easily be spec'd to have around a 25 p/w ratio (what the board appears to have as a goal for ITC, which is very reasonable).

89-90 Nissan Sentra Standard
1.6 L
90hp/96tq
4 speed
2156lbs
9.4 Comp ratio

90-94 Mazda 323 Hatchback
1.8 L
82hp/92tq
5spd
2238lbs
9.3 comp

90-93 Mazda Protege DX
1.8 L
103hp/111tq
5 speed
2388lbs (would need significantly more weight (2575?) for ITC, but the LX is classed in ITA at over 2500lbs)
8.9 comp

91-94 Toyota Tercel Coupe
1.5 liter
82hp/90tq
4 speed
1975lbs (would need some lead)
9.3 comp

88-93 VW Fox 2 door
1.8 L
81hp/93tq
4 speed
2172lbs
9.0 comp

91-96 Ford Escort Base Model
1.9 L
88hp/108tq
5 spd
2323lbs
9.0 comp

As far as the Civic HX is concerned I think that its likely an ITB car. Its got mileage gearing, but its also pretty light and has a 100+ HP VTEC 16v motor if I remember right.

I'm on the fence with the Protege DX. It appears to be a car that can fit in either ITB or ITC depending upon the final weight tally. My first thought was ITB, then I saw the LX classed in ITA at 2511lbs. Is this a gross error on a 125hp car (maybe why nobody is racing this otherwise great car) or will it take that much cage because its a 4 door? I dunno.

I do realize that all of the cars I've listed above have more power, more torque, and likely better brakes than just about every current car in ITC. I also realize that the average age of the cars classed in ITC is 15 years or older with very few cars built in the 90s. The class will simply not survive long term like this.
So lets take some of the cars I've listed above, put the right amount of weight on them, and throw them in ITC. Hopefully somebody would build them. If the aftermarket support is there, they all look like potentially good, cheap, competitive cars. And isn't that what ITC is all about???

Jake
07-27-2004, 07:40 AM
Sorry, I meant the later model Protege 1.5's. There are a lot of these out there in the used car market and they can be had VERY cheaply (because everybody prefers the 1.8L):

94-98 Mazda Protege DX/LX
1.5 L 12V SOHC
92hp/ 97tq
5 speed
Curb weight:
DX Manual – 2385lbs
LX Manual – 2445lbs
10:1 comp

Jake
07-27-2004, 07:50 AM
And here's another:

93-98 Mitsubishi Mirage 1.5L
1.5 L 12V SOHC
92hp/ 97tq
5 speed
Curb weight:
2100-2300 depending on model
10:1 comp

Jake
07-27-2004, 07:59 AM
And how about this piggy Celica?

90-93 Toyota Celica ST
1.6 L 16V DOHC
103hp/106tq
2646lbs
9:1comp

Knestis
07-27-2004, 09:34 AM
So the ITAC should start a list of tentative candidates and make a proposal to that the CRB list a nice cross-section of new cars from a number of manufacturers. Maybe one model from each to start?

K

spnkzss
07-27-2004, 10:06 AM
What about the 90 Honda Civic (is it EX?), identical to my car (1.5L DPFI), but with 90 hp and a 5 speed. Add some weight to it (to even out the hp to weight with the 90 Civic Std) and it would be more track friendly.

Catch22
07-27-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by spnkzss:
What about the 90 Honda Civic (is it EX?), identical to my car (1.5L DPFI), but with 90 hp and a 5 speed. Add some weight to it (to even out the hp to weight with the 90 Civic Std) and it would be more track friendly.

The 88-91 Civic hatch and sedan DX cars should ALL be in ITB. They are currently very wrongly in ITA. That will hopefully be remedied sometime in the near future as the board continues to shuffle cars around.
FWIW - If you match both cars up on paper the 88-91 Civic DX is almost a dead match-up for the VW GTIs that are in ITB.

And I missed the 1.5 Protege listed above. Looks like that is the ITC car and the earlier 1.8 car should probably go to ITB.

For the record, I went through the trouble...
The average age of all cars listed currently in ITC is about <drumroll> -> 22 years old.
Yikes. I didn't even realize it was that bad.

So I think we have some pretty good classification ideas here. What is the next best step? I could write a bunch of separate letters for each vehicle, but is there a better, more streamlined approach?

Knestis
07-27-2004, 06:21 PM
Ah hah! How about this getting included in the club racing strategic planning document, as a recommendation from the ITAC.

I totally believe that Scott is right on here - that the class needs the injection of some new blood in the worst way.

THAT is a strategic issue on which the ITAC should make policy recommendations.

K

EDIT - Don't forget the 105hp Geo Prism. Very cheap, tidy car.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 27, 2004).]

Jiveslug
07-28-2004, 04:39 PM
Daewoo!!!!!!

Just kidding. Everyone put their shotguns away.

Perhaps the Ford Aspire?

Ok, shotguns again. Perhaps not.

I think Ill wait and see if some of the uber slow ITA and ITB cars get reclassed. Something about the Mustang II V6 in ITB gives me that warm fuzzy feeling right in the cockles of my heart.... Or was that the Mexican food?

In all seriousness, I like the idea of new blood. ITC is an attractive class due to the cost factor. However, I tend to shy away from it because there are all of 3 ITC cars in my region (SoPac). More cars=good.

Jive

itmanta
07-28-2004, 09:00 PM
If any car should be dropped to ITC it is the 71-75 Opel Manta/Ascona with 1900cc, 7.6:1 compression. 76 stock HP, racing at 2180lbs give me a brake.

Diane
07-28-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Jiveslug:
Something about the Mustang II V6 in ITB gives me that warm fuzzy feeling right in the cockles of my heart.... Or was that the Mexican food?

Hey Jive, long time no talk. Was that sarcasm or are you a fan of the MIIs? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif You can email me diane - at - mathermotorsports - dot - com

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Diane

ITC Racer
08-30-2004, 01:47 PM
How about the 96-2000 Honda Civic Hatch. Seems to be similar specs to second gen CRX Si but a bit heavier.

Knestis
08-30-2004, 03:08 PM
The previous generation CX is already listed in C so the later equivalent can probably end up there as well, without too much hassle.

K

Dick Elliott
08-30-2004, 06:10 PM
Here's one to rip your shorts. 71/72 Ford Pinto or Capri with a 1600 Kent. Same engine as a FF at 2100 lbs or so.

lobster
08-30-2004, 10:44 PM
Some good some bad!!!

How did the Yugo get classifed at all!!! What hunks of junk! D.O.T. must have been payed off! Toyota Starlet 1.3l and 1850lbs this could work. I agree we need more ITB and ITC cars. How about the Alfa GTV's boy the Skeltons used to tear up the tracks in California with that white rocket they had 4 wheel disc brakes, 2400 lbs and a 2.0l wow Glenn

emwavey
08-31-2004, 10:20 AM
Someone mentioned Daewoo, ... not a bad idea mon' There was a little "gt" version of the smallest of their offerings that seriously had me considering buying one. They became extremely cheap to buy after the announcement of their "going out of business".

The only problem I can see is the lack of available replacement parts... but is that really any different then what some of the older ITC cars are facing now?

------------------
-dave
8) <A HREF="http://www.nerdsracing.com
Got" TARGET=_blank>http://www.nerdsracing.com
Got</A> Photos?... post 'em here: http://y3k.shacknet.nu:31338/gallery/

hornerdon
08-31-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by lobster:
Toyota Starlet 1.3l and 1850lbs this could work.

I built a Toyota Starlet ITC car a number of years ago. We had a very short career due to a rollover and some business pressures that came up while we were rebuilding the car, but I learned enough to say that the Starlet was never really competitive in ITC and certainly would not be, today. The 1290 cc engine is a pushrod, non-crossflow tractor engine, the transmission ratios are pure econo car, and it's very difficult to find anything other than the stock 3.15:1 rear end ratio (I have a 3.90 and a 4.10 from early Corollas, but I haven't seen any others for the last 10 years). It is rear wheel drive, which helps somewhat, but the wheelbase is so short it's difficult to set up under IT rules. Finally, they're always been relatively rare, but now ever more so because most of them have had engine swaps and gone drag racing.

The Starlet would be a top-level car for ITD for those regions that have it. But, it's one of the many cars that have been shoved aside to make room for newer, faster cars moving into ITC. I'm not sure that moving faster cars into a class always results in a gain in mumbers, because that kind of move usually makes several older cars less competitive.



------------------
...Don