View Full Version : "...and this just in" Honda Accord

08-29-2001, 03:52 PM
ITEM 8. Honda Accord Lxi (86-88),
p.37, reclassify to ITA. Effective 1/01/02."
MOTION (Patterson/Limbert ) PASSED.
Mellor, Barnes opposed.

08-30-2001, 10:13 PM
Those of you in the Atlanta Region SCCA will have had the pleasure of reading OPM Motorsports' Tom Fowler rant about this in the August issue of the Steering Wheel. He didn't hold back much.

Bob Pinkowski
Atlanta Region SCCA
2001 ARRC Committee
OPM Motorsports
ITS Honda Prelude

[This message has been edited by bobpink (edited August 30, 2001).]

09-25-2001, 10:55 AM

Thanks for the update. I was pretty sure it was being reclassified, but didnt know if the carbureted Accords were eligible... a friend has a DX he wants to prep to IT specs and take through school.

Also Bob, does Atlanta Region have Steering Wheel on the web? If so I'd love to read that article...

Thanks again to both of you.

09-25-2001, 03:33 PM
I'd like to be able to get ahold of a copy of the Steering Wheel if anyone can fax me the article by Tom, or if it is in fact on the web. I was at Road Atlanta for the regional a few weeks back and saw Tom run his Accord. I also had the opportunity to spend a fair amount of time talking to Bill Perry from Rivergate who brought out his Accord. The fact that the car has gotten moved to ITA is absolutely outrageous. From what I saw the car is a perfect fit for ITB since in a thoroughly well prepared state, with an excellent driver like Tom, the car is capable of running with or near the Volvos. With somewhat limited prep, such as Bill Perry's car, the car is a mid-pack car in terms of relative speed, with a good driver. It's bad enough that in moving the car to ITA it is instantly made obsolete and totally uncompetitive, a real loss to those individuals who invested their time and money in building a car that now doesn't have a prayer of running with its new classmates. What's even worse, from what I have been told by a couple of individuals in the thick of this argument, is the rumor that the person who made the recommendation to the SCCA to reclassify the car and had the greatest influence on getting it reclassed is an advisor to the comp board for IT and actually races a Volvo in ITB in his region. If this is in fact true like I have heard, I have to say this sounds like a serious conflict of interest on that individual's part and an even more inexcusable action on the part of the comp board for actually entertaining that recommendation. Has anyone else out there heard this story?

And doesn't this completely fly in the face of the comp board's previous positions concerning "competition adjustments?" I mean, they won't change the classified weight of a car if it is too heavy yet they'll move a car to a completely different class if it has the potential to be too competitive for some people's "special interests." This absolutely makes no sense to me. The car was originally classified in ITB based on their magical "secret formula" - how can they justify this move given their past reluctance to make any other "competition adjustments?"

Anyone have any thought?

I should add that I really have no vested interest in the reclassification of this car, I'm actually building a CRX for ITC. I had had a few passing thoughts about building an Accord for ITB someday but the likelihood of that was very small even before this all took place. I just can't stand it when a governing body acts in such a hypocritical manner, or when someone with such a blatant conflict of interest is allowed to have so much influence in a matter that is going to inevitably result in such financial loss to other people.

09-25-2001, 10:37 PM
It is unfortunate that active "members" of the Sports Car CLUB of America feel so disenfranchised and unable to use what is supposed to be a representative system to legislate our racing activities. It might be a good idea see if we can come to consensus on what the underlying concern is.

For that to happen, it will be necessary to set aside individual model/class issues--we will never agree on the particulars and will only succeed in looking like we are just worried about our own favorite model's competitiveness. The implication in this strand is that an individual with both clout in the system and a vested interest in the Accord classification issue may have inappropriately influenced that decision. As heinous as that would be, it is not the root of the problem...

As I have been following things, my sense is that there is a lot of frustration (in all of the make-specific forums) with the lack of "transparency", where the IT classification and specification setting process is concerned. If we were able to see into the process, then there would be no room for even the suggestion that something hinky is going on.

Thoughts on how to proceed? I confess that I have never been very clued-in about the 'off-track' part of the organization...


09-26-2001, 08:20 AM
RFloyd wrote:

What's even worse, from what I have been told by a couple of individuals in the thick of this argument, is the rumor that the person who made the recommendation to the SCCA to reclassify the car and had the greatest influence on getting it reclassed is an advisor to the comp board for IT and actually races a Volvo in ITB in his region. If this is in fact true like I have heard, I have to say this sounds like a serious conflict of interest on that individual's part and an even more inexcusable action on the part of the comp board for actually entertaining that recommendation. Has anyone else out there heard this story?

Mr RFloyd,

I don't mean to butt in here, but don't you think you should have independently verified your "story" before posting it here? I happen to be friends with the "alleged" Ad Hoc committee member and know for a FACT that he abstains from getting involved in anything that might be perceived as a conflict of interest, particularly in this case. So I think spreading libelous material on this forum is the wrong thing to do.

The fact is that MORE than this one person, who has the same amount of influence as anyone else on the IT Ad Hoc committee, felt as if the Honda Accord LXi had the potential to dominate ITB. The fact that it won't be as competitive in ITA isn't as important, in my opinion, as we have a lot of Volvos, Golfs, BMW's, and other cars that would be made obsolete if the Honda remains in ITB. I feel bad for those who have made an investment in the Accords, because they were simply taking a car that obviously had potential and developed it to the front very quickly.

FWIW, if your theory was true, then how did the ITB 8V Scirocco with the HT motor get classified? With the same motor as a Golf (10:1) and 100 lbs less AND better aerodynamics, it would obviously seem to be a threat to the Volvos wouldn't it? But it got classified!

Being on any SCCA committee or board is a thankless job, and unless you've been there I'd recommend holding back on the poison pen, especially in this case.

I'll see you on the track!


Mark Coffin
#14 ITC VW Scirocco

Crack Monkey
09-26-2001, 10:34 AM
Has there actually been an LXi that dominated in any region or any track? If there is, I haven't heard of it.

09-26-2001, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by racer14itc:
Being on any SCCA committee or board is a thankless job, and unless you've been there I'd recommend holding back on the poison pen, especially in this case

Well said!

I would like to get some additional information on the "magical secret formula" used to classify cars. Can you or someone you know provide any info?


Matt Downing
www.downingracing.com (http://www.downingracing.com)

09-26-2001, 02:39 PM
OK, so now I'm Bad Guy #1! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

Let's start buy revisiting the fact that I did say that I had heard the "rumor" from several people involved that this is what transpired. The fact is in posting this question ("Has anyone else out there heard this story? "), I AM trying to independantly verify the "story." Nowhere did I state that I knew this was in fact the full and accurate truth of the matter, I would better describe it as a very disturbing "rumor" that was passed along by an individual who did have a very vested ($$$) interest in the matter. I've always thought of this board as an open forum for opinion, a place where questions can be put forth, insight can be gained, etc., etc. I most certainly did not mean to indict the individual mentioned for any wrong-doing, I was merely stating that "if this is true," then there's clearly a conflict of interest involved. If this is in fact NOT true, then my question has been answered and now we ALL have heard both sides of the story (since I heaven't heard anything official from SCCA about why the car was reclassed - specifics, not just "potential to dominate the class.") If that person or anyone associated with him/her feels that my questioning of the events that supposedly transpired feels that I have wrongly accused or offended, I sincerely apologize. I am only seeking clarity.

I would state that it's at least my belief that no one person on the commitee that reviewed this matter should have had any personal interest in the matter (i.e. actively competing in ITB in ANY car) for it to be completely fair. Realistic? Probably not gonna happen.

You stated:
"MORE than this one person...felt as if the Honda Accord LXi had the potential to dominate ITB. The fact that it won't be as competitive in ITA isn't as important, in my opinion, as we have a lot of Volvos, Golfs, BMW's, and other cars that would be made obsolete if the Honda remains in ITB"

I have to respectfully disagree on one thing: If it is true that the SCCA has a standardized procedure for classifying cars based on the weighing of a number of different variables such as displacement, weight, engine configuration (# of valves, SOHC, DOHC, etc), and other such factors, and the Accord LXi was judged by the same standards (the "magical secret formula" I sarcastcally refer to) as all other cars and fell within the "window" of performance potential that is called "ITB" then why was it moved? The comp board has clearly shown in the past that they won't make adjustments to a car's spec's based on the effect that car might have on other car's competitiveness in the same class. In questioning my "theory" Mr. Coffin, with the 8V Scirocco example, you are actually making my point! Based on the fact that the Scirocco has an obvious mechanical advantage over the Golf that it is classed the same as, it has the potential to "dominate" the Golf and should therefore be moved to ITA since, according to your logic concerning the decision with the Accord, we're not as concerned about Schirocco owners being uncompetitive in ITA as we are concerned about Golf owners maintaining their same level of competitiveness in ITB! This CLEARLY is in direct conflict with the statement in the GCR pertaining to IT regs that the rules and the governing body that creates and enforces them DOES NOT guarantee the competitiveness of any car model in any class. Obviously this is not too big of a concern since folks running the Golfs are doing rather well. However, if someone built a real ringer of a Scirocco, who's to say that the precident set by the comp board with respect to the Accord couldn't be argued just the same for the Scirocco? Or any other car? Heck, I saw a red Volvo (you all know who I'm talking about) at Road Atlanta that beat the Accord, and everything else in ITB, both at the regional a few weeks ago and at the ARRC last fall. Maybe those Volvos have the potential to dominate ITB - I for one think they should be moved to ITA! You would think the sensible thing to do if they felt the Accord was too competitive would be to add a few hundred pounds to the minimum weight for the car... OH NO! That would be viewed as a competition adjustment! Do you understand the nature of the sarcasm? Why do we stick to a position sometimes and then willfully do the opposite in other cases?

I'm not condemning the job anyone who serves in a leadership position with SCCA. I really do value the fact that these people make time in their lives to help administrate and guide this organization and give the rest of a place to "go and play." To a person who views road racing as my personal "raison d'etre" they are all my HEROES.

I just don't think that the decision was the correct one, flame me if you like. To say that because I haven't served on the comp board I should hold the people who made this decision beyond reproach is rediculous IMHO. Let the world know what specific reasons caused this car to be reclassed when others that appear more dominant aren't and the nay-sayers will be quelled.

And Mark, you can bet you'll see me on the track! I look forward to it http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Sorry 'bout the long post...

C Ya


09-26-2001, 03:07 PM
I don't know of any formula, so I can't speak knowledgeably about how cars are classified. But if I recall correctly, the 1.5 Honda CRX now in ITC used to be an ITB car. And I'd be happy to see it put back...



[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited September 26, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited September 26, 2001).]

09-26-2001, 03:49 PM
Man I hate this crap - why!!!

It's a cheap car and makes a good racer...

Can you race a Prelude in B??? Is it worth it?


09-26-2001, 06:37 PM
Anyway you slice it the Accord guys got screwed. It's not a ITA car period.

I guess SCCA couldn't have Honda win ITA, ITC and ITB at the ARRC.

I guess the 'B' in ITB.... stands for???

Anything 'B'ut Hondas.

Tom @ OPM is right!

09-26-2001, 09:24 PM
To those interested in the article written by Tom Fowler for the Steering Wheel please e-mail me and I will send it to you ([email protected]). It's too long to post here.

I spoke with Tom today and he cleared up the "rumor" of a certain ITB Volvo driver being behind the Accord being moved to ITA. Tom spoke to the Volvo driver when this all began and found he did not start the deal to get the car re-classified. It started last year at the ARRC when a few SCCA people took notice of the Accord and how it was doing. Things went from there.... And this whole thing may not be done yet.

Bob Pinkowski
Atlanta Reigon SCCA
2001 ARRC Committee
OPM Motorsports
ITS Honda Prelude

[This message has been edited by bobpink (edited September 26, 2001).]

09-26-2001, 11:47 PM
I am a non-accord ITB driver and I also think the Accord guys got screwed..

On the 'anything goes' board there is a thread regarding IT-7 to a similar end. The thread has moved into a frank discussion of comptition adjustments. I started it, but it could get a life of it's own. There is also a thread on voting for comp adj.

just FYI, breeze over and add coments..

09-28-2001, 09:16 AM

The last statement in your post got me thinking....

".... And this whole thing may not be done yet......"

Is the reclassification of the Accord in any type of appeals process? Is there such a process?

Since the car is still a ITB car (properly-classified) whos going to the ARRC this year with one?

Once again.... what did this car do that warrented it be reclassified?? Who got so scared by this car?? I would like details if there are any.

Good luck to the Accords at the ARRC!!!

09-28-2001, 10:19 AM
I understand the re-classification will be reviewed, but don't hold your breath. Thanks Phil.

There will probably be a few Accords at the ARRC this year and rumor has it that a scary fast driver may be behind the wheel of one. We'll know if this comes about when the entry list is posted. It won't be Fowler as he will be on his own mission in ITA. Maybe the last hurrah of the Accord in ITB will be a win at the ARRC.

Don't have details about who from SCCA got the ball rolling on the Accord thing.

Bob Pinkowski
Atlanta Region SCCA
2001 ARRC Committee
OPM Motorpsorts
ITS Honda Prelude

09-28-2001, 01:47 PM
I think I heard that same rumor.

[This message has been edited by RandallH (edited November 07, 2001).]

09-28-2001, 02:09 PM
RandallH please contact me off list about the "cause" for the ITB Accord. This could be a very good thing and I would be keen to incorporate it into the ARRC.

Bob Pinkowski
[email protected]
Atlanta Region SCCA
2001 ARRC Committee
OPM Motorpsorts
ITS Honda Prelude

[This message has been edited by bobpink (edited September 28, 2001).]

09-28-2001, 02:46 PM
Seems like showing up at the ARRC and clobbering what is ostensibly the best field of B cars in the nation is the last thing that someone would want to do, if they are trying to make the case that the Accord should be in ITB. I have just two words of advice for these drivers--"bag" and "sand"!


11-05-2001, 05:44 PM
Just for fun, I plunked the data for the Accord (hope I got the right one) into the "Miller Ratio" matrix, in both A and B. Remember that this is all mythical at this point but it makes an interesting conversation. I could also use the current IT and stock curb weights to add to the chart, if anyone has them handy...

Take a look at http://www.people.virginia.edu/~krk5d/millerratio.html and let me know what you think.


Bill Miller
11-07-2001, 10:01 AM
Mark C.,

The only 'formula' used in IT is the one that they use to set the spec weight (sometimes). It is:

(curb weight x .98) + 180# (driver) - 180# (allowed removals) + 115# (rollcage), rounded down to the nearest 5#. What this all says, is that for cars ranging from 2000# - 3000# (which fits a large number of the IT cars), the cars spec weights, w/ driver should be 40# - 70# over their curb weights.

The problem is, this formula is considered a 'rule of thumb' by the CB and the ITAC, and is not applied to all cars. In addition, there are other 'rules of thumb' that may or may not be applied to certain cars.

The real problem is that it is all done w/ a "Star Chamber" methodology in some 'back room'. I have no idea why this is such a secretive process. However, I do know that one of the best ways to keep people from asking questions is to limit the amount of solid information that they have to work from.

As far as what determines if it's an ITA, B, C, or S car, I have no idea. I thought that a long time ago there were some loose guidelines that went something like this:

ITC: 8v 4cyl <= 1.6 liter
ITB: 8v 4cyl <= 2.0 liter
ITA: 8v 4cyl >= 2.0 liter, <= 2.5 liter, 16v 4cyl >= 1.6 liter, <= 2.0 liter
ITS 8v 4cyl > 2.5 liter, 16v > 2.0 liter, V6 <= 3.0 liter.

I don't remember where I heard this, but it was several years ago, and was only supposed to be a very loose guideline. A quick look at any of the IT classes will show several exceptions to this.

As Tony said, check out the "Competition Adjustments in IT" thread in the general forum for more discussion on this topic.

MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI

11-15-2001, 11:01 AM
I do not know if you guys have seen the 2001 ARRC results, but once again the killer ITB Accord did not win. In fact it was completely covered by the red Volvo and Mike Flynn's Audi. I would also like to state that when I origanally had the Accord classified in ITB, I spent four month sending Accord data to the comp board so they could make sure the car was correctly classified. I do not know if there was any formula, but they sure wanted evey detail of the car. From the comp board review the '86 to '88 was classified, but the 89 was not (disc rear brakes). At that time, the general opinion with everyone I talked to (Honda tuners)was that the car was to heavy and would never be competitive in ITB.

bill f
11-15-2001, 01:10 PM
Bill Miller. From the text of your post, can one infer that the formulae is currently being applied, but was not used in the past? Also, it would seem that only WEIGHT is the consideration, and not the weight per horsepower? Is horsepower, or was horsepower ever a consideration for inclusion into IT classes?

Was this formulae that you present fact, or rumor...how factual can we expect the information to be?

This is not ment to be a challenge, just trying to get a handle on the workings of the Great Body of Working Minds in Topeka (?). Sorry if it sounds like one.

Good racing. Bill

11-15-2001, 04:57 PM
I won't pretend to answer for Bill M. but, having been around in the very early days of IT (before it was a "national" regional class), I might have an interpretation - if not THE answer.

Originally, the category was intended to literally be a "put safety equipment, shocks, bars and a seat in it and go racing" kind of thing. The "no automatics, no wagons" rule was included as a gesture to the notion that the SCCA was about real racing cars!

The "purpose", if there was one at that time, was to introduce people to racing, get them licensed and out onto the track. Since so little could be done to the cars, there was no provision for any "competition adjustment" (the source of that current problem, I think). This wasn't a problem however, since (and this is going to sound odd) there was dominant paradigm in place that said that these were NOT real racing cars. We live with the vestiges of this in the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause.

As much as I think things are dorked up, I think that there is a chance that quibbling over individual makes/models/weights/classes is going to be counter-productive unless a couple of fundamental issues are clarified, specifically:

1. What is the "purpose" of IT? If the CB is applying a "misson statement" that differs from the folks running the cars, there will never be any accord (hah, get it?).

2. How, in a general sense, are cars classified and are specs set, and is the process aligned with the "purpose" or philosophy of the class?

I have made enough noise about the power/weight ratio games that I have been playing so will not bore anyone with that stuff again but, whatever system gets applied, it needs to be clear enough that you can figure out for yourself - in advance of submitting the request to the CB - where a new car will be classified and how much it will need to weigh.

Sorry - short answer to the actual question? I would be stunned if anything was ever put in writing, formula-wise.


11-18-2001, 09:07 PM
First let me say that my opinion is biased. I've raced and crewed for ITB VW's for quite some time.

Second, I have not sent a letter to the Comp board or BOD since I suggested weighing with driver (the 180lbs was my idea, hate me or not).

But part of what shocked me with the honda was seeing the lap times they turned last year, in their first year of compeition, with very little development. To me, the accord seemed to be the demise of the class. Much like the CRX did to the RX's in A, the accord had to possiblity of turning every competitive car into an 'also ran' overnight.

To me, its one thing to see a car that has been classed for a while (a few years) start kicking butt. It takes time to fully develop a car, the much hated volvo's have been raced since 1972.. And they still get a little faster every year. The accords were as fast or faster than the Volvo's on the first year.

That said, I think the Accord drivers got a bum rap. The SCCA had in the past gone out of its way to classify new cars into a class higher than they thought they would run. Then a few years latter when a fully developed car was considered to be moved down, it was easy to justify. It happened with the ITB Rabbit (yes they ran in ITA), and it happened with the 8v 1.8 Golf (they also ran in ITA).

In time, the volvo's will take care of themselfs. I've heard that they have a shortage of pushrods and were petitioning for an aftermarket piece. Given a few more years they just may end up moving out of IT due to lack of spares. The Audi is another problem.. Just remember, no Audi has ever survived a tear down at the ARRC (nor honda for that matteR). I don't prusume that anyone in particular is cheating, but it happens often enough that I just don't feel confidant until I've seen the tech crew measure the piss out of it.

In the end we have to petition the board to allow comp adjustments in IT. Charlie Clark, the new member from the MidWest is said to be in favor of it, so I suggest you keep those cards and letters comming.


BTW, anybody for classing the ITB Rabbit into ITC?

11-18-2001, 10:53 PM
APR67, I would like to resond to your last post. First of all I was developing my Accord in 1998, but my Golf GTI was better. So I took the Golf to then 1998 ARRC and finished 5th. Second, I ran my Accord in 1999 and finished 5th in touch with the lead pack and then had my decent run in 2000 ARRC, but failed to finish. My Accord has gone through four years of developement and more thousands of dollars than you need to know about. The shock package was sent back to Carrera four times and when that was not right, I bought Koni's. The Accord is being moved because I did not run an add in Sportscar and let all of the people at the top of ITB that I was working on the development of my car. Last, My Accord has been in the tech shed every year I have run at the ARRC and it has always pasted their scrutiny, including this year. The sad part about the Accord is that I have not been able to win a race in the Northeast. There are (2) Volvos, an Ople and (2) Winston cup Rabbit GTI that are better, But only Eric Currans Volvo has been to the ARRC. Thank you for letting me rant.

Bill Miller
11-19-2001, 08:53 AM
Bill f,

I was given that 'formula' by a couple of CB members. I was also told that it was not being used when the Rabbit GTI was originally classified in IT. I was also told that it was only a 'rule of thumb', and not necessarily applied to all cars (as well as their being other 'rules of thumb', but I've already brought that up).


I know both A1 and A2 GTI's ran in ITA at one point in time. However, many of the cars currently running today were running in higher classes back then (late 80's - early 90's). The current ITC VW Rabbit 1600 was an ITB car back then. And the 1st gen. ITA RX7 was in ITS.

Again, I think Kirk's right on point w/ his idea that we need to get the CB to take the lead from the drivers as to what the purpose and the intent of IT should be. While I wasn't involved in IT 'back in the day', I have spoken w/ several people who were. And I've heard various versions of the 'let them put the safety equipment and shocks in their street cars, let them drive them to the track and "race" them (even though they're not real race cars), and we'll get them hooked on Club Racing and they'll eventually move into a "real" race car (Prod, GT, formula, Sports)'. IT was a marketing tactic that was intended to be an entry point, not a final goal. It was supposed to support the long-term, strategic goal of boosting membership and participation in the SCCA.

I imagine that the people who originally developed the IT concept never imagined that the cars would be where they are today. After all, they're daily drivers and grocery getters, people won't 'develop' them. They didn't need to worry about things like data-based classification guidelines and competition adjustments because, after all, they weren't real race cars. Nobody would think of them as such, and the people who were driving them would move to "real" race cars if they wanted to really compete w/ other drivers.

So, since the purpose of IT racing has certainly changed, and the CB has acknowledged that change, it's time to complete the transformation and bring the rules in line w/ where IT racing is today. I don't want to try and make a 'Regional Production' class out of IT, but I do think some clearly stated guidelines on how cars are classified, an attempt to normalize the cars in a given class through a weight specification formula that takes into account more than just the stock curb weight of the car, and an ability to adjust spec weights based on emperical performance data (in addition to reclassification) are things that fit with where IT racing is today and is going in the future. I see the creation of the IT7 class (and resultant popularity) in various regions around the country as strong supporting evidence for this position.

MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI

bill f
11-19-2001, 10:49 AM
Thanks for the reply. For the record, I totally agree with you on this point.

On a different note, I am also studying the advisability of changing over to EP (car in not classified at this time), and wonder what moved you to that direction? I realize the frustrations of IT, but is there more than that?

Thanks again. Bill

Bill Miller
11-19-2001, 02:52 PM
Bill f,

There are a couple of things that have me inerested in Prod racing. First, all of the guys I paddock w/ at the MARRS races run Prod cars, and I want to be able to race w/ them as well as paddock w/ them, they're a great bunch! Second, it would be nice to be able to run Nationals and maybe one day go to the Runoffs. Third, it seems that I can probably do this for maybe a 20% upcharge over the cost of running an IT car. Fourth, w/ the restrictions on engines, they should live for quite a while (at least as long as a well-built IT motor). Fifth, there's actually some room to do some development on the car.


MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI

11-19-2001, 10:45 PM
I sure did not mean to infer that your car wasn't well prep'ed. I can see quite easily (on a stopwatch) that they car is very well developed at this point.

Furthermore, I will not get into comments of which specific car is legal not legal. I can only comment on cars that I have driven and worked on. Anyone who belives someone is bending the rules should either put the money up, or hush up (IMHO).

In the end, no matter what decision was made, someone was going to feel like they got screwed. Until the stakeholders in the class activly revolt and get the SCCA to deal with the performance differences of new cars, this problem will continue to be around in one form or another.

Anyway, this is my last post on the topic, I'll go back to lurking. Sometimes (as you well know) a significant life altering event changes the importance of things in your life. Bitching about the SCCA's treatment of IT is much lower on my list than it used to be.

Congrats to you and your crew for a job well done.

Alan Russell

11-20-2001, 11:49 AM
Thanks Allen, I agree that there are a lot more important things to worry about than the SCCA. I just think there is a major force out there not to change ITB: move the Accord to "A", not allow the 2 liter/ 8 valve golf (at 2500 pounds) and not allow the HT motor in the sciracco. I do not know the documentation of the HT, but all of these move would allow for newer cars to be competitive in ITB and not have people search the globe for 30 year old vehicles.

Bill Miller
11-20-2001, 04:09 PM

I don't have the total story on the HT motor in the Scirocco, but from what I understand, it was only available in some of the very last of the '88 Scirocco 8v's that were built before the Scirocco model was discontinued and replaced by the G60 Corrado.

What I'm not sure of, is what the CR of the HT motor was, as delivered. I've heard that it was 10:1 and that it was 8.5:1. The only thing I'm sure of is that it was a hydraulic lifter motor w/ the 40mm/33mm valves.

For some reason, Denver can't seem to get its act together w/ the VW's in IT. The list the '85-'89 Golf 8v as a 10:1 CR, for all models (GL/GT/GTI) and let them run 13" or 14" wheels, yet they list the Jettas from the same period (all models, GL/GLI) as an 8.5:1 CR, and list only 14" wheels. The GLI was the only one that came w/ the 14" wheels, and it was a 10:1 CR motor (same as the Golf GTI 8v).

They also list Scirocco II ('81-'84) w/ a 1.7 liter motor at 2110# (same as the Scirocco I w/ the 1.7), yet the list the Scirocco 8v ('83-'88) w/ the 1.8 liter motor at 2270#. Point is, there were no '84 Scirocco w/ the 1.7 motor, and how did the car gain 160# just from a 100cc displacement increase? They did the same thing for the Rabbits w/ the 1.7 in ITB ('81-'84) at 2050# yet make the '83-'84 Rabbit GTI w/ the 1.8 weigh 2180#. And the '84 VW sales brochure for the Rabbits shows a range of ~50# (not including the Cabriolet), w/ the GTI being in the middle.

This is why there needs to be a well-defined, evenly-applied process for classing and spec'ing IT cars.

MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI