PDA

View Full Version : Porsche 944S



RussJones
09-12-2005, 10:05 AM
I've just started racing a 944S, Im having my share of problems and frustrations. Would like to discuss the car with other people who have built them. I spoke to a guy named Mark N, from the south, dont have his number or email. If either him or Kip Vanstenberg reads this (or anyone else) would be kind enough to call me or email me it would be helpful and appreciated.

Russ Jones
978 741-3344
[email protected]

wpspeedracer
09-13-2005, 07:20 AM
Hey Russ
I'll give you a call today
mark n

latebrake
09-23-2005, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by RussJones@Sep 12 2005, 10:05 AM
I've just started racing a 944S, Im having my share of problems and frustrations. Would like to discuss the car with other people who have built them. I spoke to a guy named Mark N, from the south, dont have his number or email. If either him or Kip Vanstenberg reads this (or anyone else) would be kind enough to call me or email me it would be helpful and appreciated.

Russ Jones
978 741-3344
[email protected]

60006


I race a 944 E/P car with SCCA and 944 cup with NASA. Dont know if I can be of any help but if I can I will. There are a lot of common parts on all the 44 cars and they all suffer the same woes too or so I am told. Mine is a 2.5 car with one cam and only 8 valves makes about 200hp and spins to 7200. I havent raced in 05 because of work (no time) but plan to play again in 06.

Lawrence

Geo
11-03-2005, 01:04 AM
Russ, I'm building an 8v 944, but I know a couple of people who have a 944S for ITS.

What are your frustrations?

Other than the engine the two cars are the same.

You can contact me at: geo31 (at) earthlink (dot) net

JeffYoung
11-03-2005, 01:17 AM
By the way, there was a "new" -- meaning I haven't seen it before -- red 944s at VIR last weekend. Nice car, ran decent times especially if first time out. Is it anyone's here?

latebrake
11-03-2005, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Nov 3 2005, 01:17 AM
By the way, there was a "new" -- meaning I haven't seen it before -- red 944s at VIR last weekend. Nice car, ran decent times especially if first time out. Is it anyone's here?

64441


We paddocked next to him at VIR. Nice guy but dont remember his name. He was asking about a short 5 gear. I think Jesse got his name but not sure. He said that this was only his 2nd 3rd time racing the car. Jesse rented his car to Rick Starkweather for the production race. WE both run E/P Prosche cars. If I find out I will post it here.

Lawrence

Andy Bettencourt
11-03-2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Nov 3 2005, 01:17 AM
By the way, there was a "new" -- meaning I haven't seen it before -- red 944s at VIR last weekend. Nice car, ran decent times especially if first time out. Is it anyone's here?

64441


Can you pull his name off of MYLAPS? Was it Russ?

JeffYoung
11-03-2005, 12:39 PM
No, John Linkengauer I believe. I'll pull the correct name off of mylaps once it comes back up, appears down for maintenance.

JeffYoung
11-03-2005, 04:58 PM
JAMES LINKENAUGER

Wreckerboy
11-04-2005, 09:07 AM
This 944 based series ran with EMRA at Watkins Glen a few weeks ago. The rules are not IT compliant, but could be a source of information for you - http://www.44cup.com/

robroberts
11-06-2005, 10:40 PM
Hey guys , anyone got any good tips for getting a new 924 ready for the track?
any info would be appreciated.

924Guy
11-07-2005, 11:11 AM
First off - what kind of 924, 2.0L or 2.5L (ITB or ITS)?

Not that it really changes the basics, just the details on the list. Of course, the basic list could probably apply to any IT car build. I should probably also ask, are you building it to run (now or later) in IT, or purely as a DE car? It's not a bad idea to build a DE car to class prep, to improve your ability to resale it later as needed, even if you'll never race (never say never!).

#1: Reliability. You've gotta have a car that'll stay running if you want to learn how to drive and race.

#2: Suspension. Gotta have a car that'll handle predictably if you want to learn to get the most out of it. Big question here is what is your budget; not much better than full spherical bearing setup and fully-adjustable shocks, but is that $3k+ in your budget?

#3: Speed. Diff, engine, the like. Again, direction depends on what you're building, and what's your budget. Might also matter how close you are to winning; if you've got a 2.5L, do you want to throw the big bucks at a Millege engine, or do you have too much still to learn about driving before you get to the podium? For a 2.0L, can you capably build your own? Do you have the budget to have someone like Istook or Shine build you a motor just so you don't have to worry about it?

Might want to start another thread... and, of course, check out www.924.org and www.924board.org!

Geo
11-07-2005, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Wreckerboy@Nov 4 2005, 08:07 AM
This 944 based series ran with EMRA at Watkins Glen a few weeks ago. The rules are not IT compliant, but could be a source of information for you - http://www.44cup.com/

64604


Actually, 944Cup has many former ITS cars running in ITS trim. The class was specifically set up to have a competitive place for ITS 944 owners who felt they could not be competitive in ITS.

Geo
11-07-2005, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by robroberts@Nov 6 2005, 09:40 PM
Hey guys , anyone got any good tips for getting a new 924 ready for the track?
any info would be appreciated.

64749


Yeah, buy one that is already built. There is one for sale in Ft. Worth right now. It was previously owned by Don Istook. If you don't know who he is, he's been racing Porsches a long long time. He was racing 944s when only a handful of people in this country even owned them. The car is currently in Don's shop.

924Guy
11-08-2005, 09:52 AM
And I posted the listing in the Classifieds section here on behalf of the owner.

JeffYoung
11-10-2005, 05:35 AM
George, hope this isn't a thread hijack but I wanted to comment on 944 Cup. I ran a NASA race a few weeks back and I was shocked by the number (20+ maybe) of 944 race cars that were there. Not all were potential ITS cars, but a good chunk were.

How do we get those guys back to ITS? It seems to me that the 944 and 944s should in many ways be the quintessential ITS car, and here we are with most people taking their toys elsewhere.

What do these cars need to run up front in S? Is it just too much of a dollar investment getting power out of the motor (I've heard the quotes for Milledge motors and that scares me)? Or is it the weight?

I would hope that as part of the re-ordering of IT that is coming up, that the ITAC gives serious consideration to the 944 and to helping it out (and this is from a non-044 driver). Having all of those potential ITS cars over in NASA 944 Cup is a bad thing.

latebrake
11-10-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Nov 10 2005, 05:35 AM
George, hope this isn't a thread hijack but I wanted to comment on 944 Cup. I ran a NASA race a few weeks back and I was shocked by the number (20+ maybe) of 944 race cars that were there. Not all were potential ITS cars, but a good chunk were.

How do we get those guys back to ITS? It seems to me that the 944 and 944s should in many ways be the quintessential ITS car, and here we are with most people taking their toys elsewhere.

What do these cars need to run up front in S? Is it just too much of a dollar investment getting power out of the motor (I've heard the quotes for Milledge motors and that scares me)? Or is it the weight?

I would hope that as part of the re-ordering of IT that is coming up, that the ITAC gives serious consideration to the 944 and to helping it out (and this is from a non-044 driver). Having all of those potential ITS cars over in NASA 944 Cup is a bad thing.

65075


George,

Porsche has taken a beating from SCCA for some time now. NASA allows the front engine cars to race with each other. The 2.5 car in ITS skin wont run up front even with a good engine. They handle good but wont make the power. About 120 to 125 at the wheels ITS legal. I run a 944 E/P car and have two Milledge engines. Not cheap but needed to run up front. So I run my car with NASA when they run at VIR or CMP. Production is not cheap racing and if I had it to do all over again I would run the 944S or the 2.7 engine in ITS.

I have a friend who has not run his 1976 924 for several years and wants to sell it for 4k. I think it can run ITA with carbs (on the car now) It was a J-PCA car and held a couple track records somewhere. I dont like the 2L Audi engine much,just me.
Dont build a car!!!!! Buy one. Its 50 cent on the dollar cheaper. Buy Mine for 15k and run it in the NASA cup, it won the SE division in 04. I had a friend killed at at BMWCCA event the other week and the wife is hasing hell with me.

Lawrence

924Guy
11-10-2005, 02:34 PM
Sorry, those carbs won't work in IT - must run the stock CIS. I'd imagine a '76 would need a helluva lot of ballast (or driver... same thing? ;) ) to meet weight in ITA at 2600#; even the late cars (like my '79) need some ballast, and the early cars weighed 200-300lbs less... I agree, the 2.0L engine isn't the car's strongest point, but it may be sufficient in ITB...

I agree, I don't see the 2.5L 944 ever able to meet the bar in ITS... needs to drop back to ITA where it can compete with cars its own size, like the Nissan 240...

Geo
11-10-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Nov 10 2005, 04:35 AM
George, hope this isn't a thread hijack but I wanted to comment on 944 Cup. I ran a NASA race a few weeks back and I was shocked by the number (20+ maybe) of 944 race cars that were there. Not all were potential ITS cars, but a good chunk were.

How do we get those guys back to ITS? It seems to me that the 944 and 944s should in many ways be the quintessential ITS car, and here we are with most people taking their toys elsewhere.

What do these cars need to run up front in S? Is it just too much of a dollar investment getting power out of the motor (I've heard the quotes for Milledge motors and that scares me)? Or is it the weight?

I would hope that as part of the re-ordering of IT that is coming up, that the ITAC gives serious consideration to the 944 and to helping it out (and this is from a non-044 driver). Having all of those potential ITS cars over in NASA 944 Cup is a bad thing.

65075


Jeff, I truly appreciate the observation. I've had a number of discussions about the 944 with the ITAC and most of them have been rather, ah, spirited. Basically I have felt the car was clearly an ITA car. Now I think it may be able to go either way if dealt with correctly (not talking dual classification, although that might work).

I've pointed out exactly the point you're making about the popularity of 944 Cup and also Spec 944. I've pointed out that both series point to a failure for IT (I believe most spec series point to a failure for IT). As you noted with 944 Cup, there is a ready group of cars that could and quite likely would race in IT if the current classification didn't make it like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I had a long conversation with Jon Milledge so I could supply the straight scoop on both the 944 and 944S and this has lead me to believe the 944 can be made to fit ITS reasonable well or at least well enough to give it a good try.

So, we (the ITAC) have made a recomendation to the CRB to change the weight of the car to make it more in line with the class (using the process we use for all other cars). I won't of course say what that is. I will say that I think it's a tad higher than it should be, but I'm more than happy to try it at that weight. Some folks on the ITAC feel it's going to be light and some are neutral. It will certainly be interesting to see, assuming the CRB accepts our re-ordering proposal. For sure it should get more 944s out on the track in ITS. There are certainly plenty of them around either built for ITS or easily adapted to ITS.

As for what is needed, a well built engine will certainly be a requirement to run up front, but that is as it should be. What I think will happen is some of the good cars without Milledge engines will be able to be very competitive in some places while in others people will struggle even with Milledge engines, such is regional competition. I think in general a more moderately built car will fare better than other moderately built cars simply because an all-out Milledge engine doesn't make the increases that other all-out engines make, so there would be less of a spread between the great and the good. In the end, I think the car will be a good, fun car and there are still a buttload of them out there either built or ready to be built.

To sum it up in a single sentance, I think if the CRB accepts our proposal, it should fare OK in the grand scheme of things.

I know I'm looking forward to it.

Geo
11-10-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Nov 10 2005, 11:16 AM
George,

Porsche has taken a beating from SCCA for some time now. NASA allows the front engine cars to race with each other. The 2.5 car in ITS skin wont run up front even with a good engine. They handle good but wont make the power. About 120 to 125 at the wheels ITS legal. I run a 944 E/P car and have two Milledge engines. Not cheap but needed to run up front. So I run my car with NASA when they run at VIR or CMP. Production is not cheap racing and if I had it to do all over again I would run the 944S or the 2.7 engine in ITS.

I have a friend who has not run his 1976 924 for several years and wants to sell it for 4k. I think it can run ITA with carbs (on the car now) It was a J-PCA car and held a couple track records somewhere. I dont like the 2L Audi engine much,just me.
Dont build a car!!!!! Buy one. Its 50 cent on the dollar cheaper. Buy Mine for 15k and run it in the NASA cup, it won the SE division in 04. I had a friend killed at at BMWCCA event the other week and the wife is hasing hell with me.

Lawrence

65090


A truly all-out engine should put down well over 125 to the wheels. Milledge engines put out 185 at the crank. I cannot believe there are 30% driveline losses. I think the problem is a) nobody but Jon is doing serious development of these engines, and B) most people are not willing to go the distance to really get that level of development. I know in the 944 community there is a belief that there is little to nothing that can be done for these engines, but when Jon can get 185 for an IT legal engine I know most people just aren't putting in the effort. That said, I won't have a Milledge engine. I don't know everything that Jon does, but I do know the key ingredient that makes the difference between a good and a great engine. I won't tell because I bought Jon's $100 ITS primer and I believe that information is proprietary (it's not mine to give). Since you have Milledge engines, it might be worty a conversation with Jon about this.

The 2.7 does not make a good ITS engine. The weight premium that is paid for the displacement is way too much. A fully built 2.7 ITS engine only makes a few more hp than the 2.5. I also know what causes that difference, but again, I consider that info proprietary.

I'm sorry about Dave. Everything I've read about him as a person has been pretty stellar. I also heard he set a class lap record on his last race lap.

latebrake
11-10-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Geo@Nov 10 2005, 03:39 PM
A truly all-out engine should put down well over 125 to the wheels. Milledge engines put out 185 at the crank. I cannot believe there are 30% driveline losses. I think the problem is a) nobody but Jon is doing serious development of these engines, and B) most people are not willing to go the distance to really get that level of development. I know in the 944 community there is a belief that there is little to nothing that can be done for these engines, but when Jon can get 185 for an IT legal engine I know most people just aren't putting in the effort. That said, I won't have a Milledge engine. I don't know everything that Jon does, but I do know the key ingredient that makes the difference between a good and a great engine. I won't tell because I bought Jon's $100 ITS primer and I believe that information is proprietary (it's not mine to give). Since you have Milledge engines, it might be worty a conversation with Jon about this.

The 2.7 does not make a good ITS engine. The weight premium that is paid for the displacement is way too much. A fully built 2.7 ITS engine only makes a few more hp than the 2.5. I also know what causes that difference, but again, I consider that info proprietary.

I'm sorry about Dave. Everything I've read about him as a person has been pretty stellar. I also heard he set a class lap record on his last race lap.

65110


Everything Jon has told me has been right on the money. No pum intended. A stock off the street engine will make about 125 at the wheels. Just a little intake and exhaust fixes a lot of that. The #2 bearing can be worked out if you take care of the right foot problem. Just like most engines. I have had friends race these cars for as long as 4 years with only oil changes , plugs, pads and tires.

It would bring a lot of them back if it ran in ITA or got some sort of weight break. Otherwise its going to take a lot of money to build a Milledge or Sunbelt power plant. There goes the cheap racing part. The 2.5 944 can run in SCCA,NASA,SVRA,HSR. you can race your brains out if you have time and money and there are a ton of them around cheap. I live 17 min from VIR and have cut my grass in the morning and raced that afternoon. I love to tell that one. :)

Lawrence

944-spec#94
11-14-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Nov 10 2005, 09:16 AM
The 2.5 car in ITS skin wont run up front even with a good engine. They handle good but wont make the power. About 120 to 125 at the wheels ITS legal.

Well I have to disagree on one point.

My 944 motor puts out 134 rwhp as well as all the 60 or 70 west coast 944 spec race cars. Most of our cars run 129-135 rwhp. These are in motor prepared LESS than ITS allowables. (my motor is a stock 9.5:1 CR pistons, 140k mile block & rings, Stock header, test pipe stock muffler, aftermarket DME chip, freshish stock headwork). Of course this was done on purpose to keep the cars a little cheaper.

Supposedly Jon Millegdge can build a 183 bhp ITS legal motor. That should put down about 158 or so to the wheels. That the MOST Hp I figure you can get from a ITS legal motor. Jon knows his stuff and due limited piston supplies even that power may tough to get.

Still with 158 rwhp at 2715 lbs the cars are just too low on hp and have too much weight to be strong in ITS given the currnet cars out there.


Now on the west coast NASA 944-spec is popular for a few reason.

1) most folks are "Porsche" types so racing a Porsche is desire of theirs in general and this class offer this for about as low as you can. 10k gets you race winning car. (built or bought)

2) The rules in many way are more restrictive than IT on cost items, shocks, bushings, engine prep, and springs, but more flexiable on weight savings/low cost stuff. Weight removal is more liberal with lower weight (2600 lbs with driver), door glass can come out, lightweight batteries, drilled rotors and a few other things. Also we have spec wheel and tire Toyo RA-1.

3) It is a class philosophy that strong cars can be build in your backyard and don't need shop. Fancy engine builds are discouraged greatly. Yep as of this time you don't need a shop to build you class winning car. It can be done in your backyard with a junkyard motor or if you want a stock "build it at home" motor.

4) drivers in the class are all pretty friendly and help the new drivers get up to speed and with car prep. The biggest goal is to have fun and more drivers at speed means more fun.


For me racing in IT on the west coast is not a goal of mine. Most due to the motor work the car will need to be competitive. Hell even the weights were changed to allow a 183 bhp milledge motor car to be competitive I would not get in IT. Reaons being is the cost for that Milledge motor is extreme and simply there more 944 spec cars than IT cars in this area.

Geo
11-14-2005, 02:13 PM
Actually Joe, about the only things we can do in IT that you cannot do legally are:

1) Cold Air Intake - but since nobody makes an effective one or has been able to get one to make power to this point, it's a moot point.

2) Port matching - not worth much hp.

3) Increase CR a half point - good for about 3-5 hp tops.

4) Alternate engine management within the stock ECU box - but so far there is nothing that fits that would work wtih the stock wiring harness so this is also a moot point.

In the end, the only that really keeps your cars from making more hp is people willing to spend the dough. You can do all the little things Jon does that makes hp and I have no doubt he could build a legal engine for Spec 944 that would make within 5-6 of what his IT engines make.

latebrake
11-14-2005, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Geo@Nov 14 2005, 02:13 PM
Actually Joe, about the only things we can do in IT that you cannot do legally are:

1) Cold Air Intake - but since nobody makes an effective one or has been able to get one to make power to this point, it's a moot point.

2) Port matching - not worth much hp.

3) Increase CR a half point - good for about 3-5 hp tops.

4) Alternate engine management within the stock ECU box - but so far there is nothing that fits that would work wtih the stock wiring harness so this is also a moot point.

In the end, the only that really keeps your cars from making more hp is people willing to spend the dough. You can do all the little things Jon does that makes hp and I have no doubt he could build a legal engine for Spec 944 that would make within 5-6 of what his IT engines make.

65328


I picked up a 1987 924S just to drive to work or DE days with PCA. 25+mpg to drive to work was the big interest. I have a Millege engine I tried to sell here and it just may find its way into the car one way or the other. I dont think you can get much more than fun in IT with the 2.5 engine so the NASA cup is going to keep most of that crowd. The 944S may keep up better but still not a front runner if the BMW is around with a skilled driver. Lots of others as well. Enduro racing is the 944's cup of tea anyway. A good turbo car can turn out a good performance in that kind of racing.

lawrence

Geo
11-14-2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Nov 14 2005, 11:22 AM
I picked up a 1987 924S just to drive to work or DE days with PCA. 25+mpg to drive to work was the big interest. I have a Millege engine I tried to sell here and it just may find its way into the car one way or the other. I dont think you can get much more than fun in IT with the 2.5 engine so the NASA cup is going to keep most of that crowd.

65333


Stay tuned. That may change.

944-spec#94
11-14-2005, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Geo@Nov 14 2005, 11:13 AM
You can do all the little things Jon does that makes hp and I have no doubt he could build a legal engine for Spec 944 that would make within 5-6 of what his IT engines make.

65328


Well try that and I am sure we will change the rules to stop it SOMEHOW.

I know we have gone on about this, but one goal of 944 spec is to run simple stock motors. So far all have kept to that even though some have tried to push the edges. I still have not seen spec car make milledge numbers on the track. (and I hope I never will).

That does not belong in our class.. :P

It is one the big things that seperates 944 spec cars from IT cars.

IT Expects full tilt motors to the limits.

944-spec expects and wants junkyard motors to run strong and will do things to keep it that way.

latebrake
11-14-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by 944-spec#94@Nov 14 2005, 06:14 PM
Well try that and I am sure we will change the rules to stop it SOMEHOW.

I know we have gone on about this, but one goal of 944 spec is to run simple stock motors. So far all have kept to that even though some have tried to push the edges. I still have not seen spec car make milledge numbers on the track. (and I hope I never will).

That does not belong in our class.. :P

It is one the big things that seperates 944 spec cars from IT cars.

IT Expects full tilt motors to the limits.

944-spec expects and wants junkyard motors to run strong and will do things to keep it that way.

65359


The 944 came with 9.5 to 10.9 pistons during its life. Is the 10.9 legal in ITS? I was just wondering because I have a production engine with 10.9 pistons. All I have to do is change the head to legal ITS and install the balance shafts and BANG I have an ITS engine again. Right/wrong?

Lawrence

Geo
11-14-2005, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by 944-spec#94@Nov 14 2005, 03:14 PM
Well try that and I am sure we will change the rules to stop it SOMEHOW.

I know we have gone on about this, but one goal of 944 spec is to run simple stock motors. So far all have kept to that even though some have tried to push the edges. I still have not seen spec car make milledge numbers on the track. (and I hope I never will).

That does not belong in our class.. :P

It is one the big things that seperates 944 spec cars from IT cars.

IT Expects full tilt motors to the limits.

944-spec expects and wants junkyard motors to run strong and will do things to keep it that way.

65359


I don't see any possible way to change your rules to disallow it. Jon does not use any non-factory parts. The only things he does for an IT engine that you don't allow is raising the CR and port matching. Oh, and he balances. But, you cannot even stop that. Even in showroom stock racing they balance and blueprint engines by careful part selection.

As much as you like to think otherwise, as I said a long time ago, the only thing keeping your engines from being expensive crate engines is the willingness of the competitors to spend the money. That's it. I'm not dissng your series, but just discussing the realities. There is absolutely nothing you can do through the rules to prevent it.

Geo
11-14-2005, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Nov 14 2005, 03:51 PM
The 944 came with 9.5 to 10.9 pistons during its life. Is the 10.9 legal in ITS? I was just wondering because I have a production engine with 10.9 pistons. All I have to do is change the head to legal ITS and install the balance shafts and BANG I have an ITS engine again. Right/wrong?

Lawrence

65368


Actually, the highest compression pistons available in a US delivered car are 10.2:1. As for the rest of your question, I wouldn't have the slightest clue since I don't know what-all you've done to your engine.

latebrake
11-15-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Geo@Nov 14 2005, 09:56 PM
Actually, the highest compression pistons available in a US delivered car are 10.2:1. As for the rest of your question, I wouldn't have the slightest clue since I don't know what-all you've done to your engine.

65380


I had an 88 with 10.2 pistons. The 10.9 are euro pistons. I am sure there was a ton of them imported into the US but dont know what the bench mark for ITS is on this sort of thing. The rest of the engine is stock except for balancing the rods and perp drilling the crank. The 944 runs as a limited prep car in E/P so they dont allow killer mods to the engine. The current engine in my car may make 215hp at the flywheel but that is with a stand alone computer and other tricks. Thanks for the help.

Lawrence.

944-spec#94
11-15-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Geo@Nov 14 2005, 06:54 PM
There is absolutely nothing you can do through the rules to prevent it.

65379


Well... one option we have relates to the engine management. If needed we can with relative ease go to stock computers. Of all cars in our series there are only Two versions of the computers. So we require stock computers and if need be do random swaps from your car to a competitior car 30 min before the race.

With stock computer sending stock fuel in to the motor it is hard gain anything.

That is just one thing.. The there are stock headers we can go to even require stock mufflers. That will limit the exhaust. Hell we can even do AFM swaps from car to car. Don't forget we are limied to stock Fuel Pressure regulators.
All of which can be easily enforce by swapping from car to car to "sealed" factory unit at any time.

Really it sure helps to have limit cars types.

BTW...
the 8valve non turbo 2.5L 944 had 3 piston types.
9.5:1 US spec
10.2:1 US & Euro spec Model year 1988 only
10.6:1 Euro only pistons.
To my knowledge 10.6:1 piston are not legal in IT since they are not a US part.
So you have 10.2:1 and 9.5:1. In our series these pistons don't seem to make and performance differences.

Now a 10.9:1 piston was made, but this was for the 944S the 16valve car. Visuall it has 4 cut outs on top for the valves rather than just 2.
Also I am not sure the 2.7L piston's compression ratio, but it has bigger bore so clearly it wont fit in the 2.5L motor.

Geo
11-15-2005, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Nov 15 2005, 08:26 AM
I had an 88 with 10.2 pistons. The 10.9 are euro pistons. I am sure there was a ton of them imported into the US but dont know what the bench mark for ITS is on this sort of thing. The rest of the engine is stock except for balancing the rods and perp drilling the crank. The 944 runs as a limited prep car in E/P so they dont allow killer mods to the engine. The current engine in my car may make 215hp at the flywheel but that is with a stand alone computer and other tricks. Thanks for the help.

Lawrence.

65426


As Joe said, only pistons supplied in US market cars from the factory can be used, thus you are limited to 10.2:1 pistons and an overall CR of 10.7:1 by shaving the head. The crank drilling is illegal. However, I'll bet almost every 944 in IT has it done. So, just an FYI.

I'm not familiar enough with Production to know exactly the differences in the rules, although I started studying it for a little while.

JimLill
11-25-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Geo@Nov 10 2005, 03:39 PM
The 2.7 does not make a good ITS engine.

Are you speaking of the 89 4V2.7 or the "S" DOHC2.7 or both?

Geo
11-25-2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Nov 25 2005, 01:08 PM
Are you speaking of the 89 4V2.7 or the "S" DOHC2.7 or both?

66653


The 8v. According to Milledge they don't make much more hp than the 2.5 and certainly not enough to make up for the weight penalty.

944-spec#94
11-28-2005, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Nov 25 2005, 01:08 PM
Are you speaking of the 89 4V2.7 or the "S" DOHC2.7 or both?

66653


In 89 the only 944 engine was the 2.7L 8valve unit (SOHC)
From 83 to 88 the 944 engine was the 2.5L 8valve unit (SOHC)

The 944S only came in 87 and 88 in 2.5L 16valve (DOHC) versions.

Team SSR
12-05-2005, 12:50 PM
In '89 thru '91(?) the 16v was dubbed the S2, and it was 3.0 liters. It also received the turbo styled front end.
Of course you could probably buy and build a nice IT racer out of a 'regular' 944 for the cost of just buying an S2.

By the way, we built an '84 944 that will race in 2006.
I built the motor for my '87 944S daily driver/track car.
We'd be glad to help out if we can. We'll be running SEDiv races.

One tip: Don't run a plastic fuel filter between the tank and the fuel pump. We shattered one on Saturday. Makes a mess. :(

JimLill
12-05-2005, 07:05 PM
a 1987 944 S is legal for ITS for 2006, correct? A good or bad choice?

lateapex911
12-05-2005, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 5 2005, 07:05 PM
a 1987 944 S is legal for ITS for 2006, correct? A good or bad choice?

67393


A 944S is an excellent choice. (Could be an even better choice in the future, if all goes well)

latebrake
12-06-2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 5 2005, 11:43 PM
A 944S is an excellent choice. (Could be an even better choice in the future, if all goes well)

67430


What kind of HP is practical form a stock 944S/87 with only exhaust and intake upgrades (legal)?

Why does the 944S run at a lower weigh than the 2.7L car?

Lawrence

Geo
12-06-2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 6 2005, 07:31 AM
What kind of HP is practical form a stock 944S/87 with only exhaust and intake upgrades (legal)?

67452


Jon Milledge is getting 209 bhp from IT legal 944S engines.

JimLill
12-06-2005, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Geo@Dec 6 2005, 01:07 PM
Jon Milledge is getting 209 bhp from IT legal 944S engines.

67459


Is that crank or WHP? With 188 to start, I'd think you could get a tad more..

- exhaust header etc
- chipped ECU
- revised pre MAF intake
- blueprint

all legal I think.......

lateapex911
12-06-2005, 11:42 PM
The 944 isn't like most cars, things are pretty optimized right from the factory, and historicly, they just don't see the gains typical in other makes.

The 911 E and S that are classed for ITS are even worse off, as getting more HP from them is even harder. I doubt you will see many...if any...of them, and certainly not at the front of a top notch grid, as the spec weight is just a tad too high to warrant the expense.

Geo
12-07-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 6 2005, 03:06 PM
Is that crank or WHP? With 188 to start, I'd think you could get a tad more..

- exhaust header etc
- chipped ECU
- revised pre MAF intake
- blueprint

all legal I think.......

67474


That would be at the crank. Custom header, MoTeC, etc. It's a full development engine. As Jake said, there just is not as much to be had. I didn't get into what limits the S engine. On the 8v engine it's the stock cam.

Jon does pretty heavy development on an engine brake dyno. While one might think there are standard gains to be made, that is not always the case.

JimLill
12-07-2005, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Geo@Dec 7 2005, 12:49 AM
That would be at the crank. Custom header, MoTeC, etc. It's a full development engine. As Jake said, there just is not as much to be had. I didn't get into what limits the S engine. On the 8v engine it's the stock cam.

Jon does pretty heavy development on an engine brake dyno. While one might think there are standard gains to be made, that is not always the case.

67493



Motec ? Is that legal?

latebrake
12-07-2005, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 06:34 AM
Motec ? Is that legal?

67495


Just a change here, Will the 944s2 ever be an IT car? I think it makes about 225 or just under at the flywheel. What does the BMW make compaired to weight? They are good dependable engines and cars so the money to race would be kept down just a little and could make for fun racing with the faster cars.

Lawrence

Geo
12-07-2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 7 2005, 07:46 AM
Just a change here, Will the 944s2 ever be an IT car? I think it makes about 225 or just under at the flywheel. What does the BMW make compaired to weight? They are good dependable engines and cars so the money to race would be kept down just a little and could make for fun racing with the faster cars.

Lawrence

67504


I don't speak for the entire ITAC by any means, but IMHO the car has too much power for ITS. If a class above ITS becomes reality, I think the S2 would certainly be up for consideration along with the 968. I personally would have a hard time endorsing it for ITS though.

Geo
12-07-2005, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 03:34 AM
Motec ? Is that legal?

67495


A MoTeC is legal if it fits within the stock ECU (DME) box and the box still uses the same stock connector to connect to a stock wiring harness. This can and has been done with a number of cars including the 944S.

There are a lot of ideas floating around regarding how much of a diffrence the MoTeC makes vs a well developed set of maps on a chip in the stock board. According to Jon, the MoTeC is worth 4 hp over a good remap of the stock ECU.

latebrake
12-07-2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Geo@Dec 7 2005, 12:47 PM
I don't speak for the entire ITAC by any means, but IMHO the car has too much power for ITS. If a class above ITS becomes reality, I think the S2 would certainly be up for consideration along with the 968. I personally would have a hard time endorsing it for ITS though.

67515


I understand but help me out a little here. I have a line on a very good (rear end damaged) 944S and have found a 944S2 as well. What does the 944S2 make stock and what does the BMW make stock. I have considered selling the E production 944 car and building another IT car. Cost is a little high in production. I know I should do my own homework but you guys know IT way better than me.

If its only 10 hp difference bewteen the 944S and the 944S2 I would just skip any letters and fights that comes with getting something classed,if at all workable anyway.

Lawrence

JimLill
12-07-2005, 05:31 PM
as while we are off on 944 tangents.....

What is the trick to make clutch replacement easier?

latebrake
12-07-2005, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 05:31 PM
as while we are off on 944 tangents.....

What is the trick to make clutch replacement easier?

67539


there is no real easy way IMHO.

All of them I have done was when the engine was out of the car.
I have one to do for a friend soon. They say you can do this without dropping the trans. Leave the axels hooked up and remove the mounts so you can pull it back,unhook the shifter rod/one set screw. Take the four bolts off the T-tube. This is supposded to leave you enough room to move the bell housing and have enough room to side the clutch off the splines forward. I guess the bolts on the T tube lets you move it up or down. dont forget to pull the fork off the bell housing,I know you knew that. Never did it this way so just second hand info.
If all else fails,drop the trans and you have lots of room.

I have dropped a trans and put it back by myself in one hour so this is my method the other sounds like 90+ % of the same work.

My oil pan is trick so I can move the engine forward over the cross beam if needed. A stock one will still come forward a few inches. Gets around the U bolts on the T Tube and the rust/exhaust.

Cut out the spare wheel well and rig it to pop back in. Lots of room to slide the trans back there,best idea I had all day.

Lawrence

JimLill
12-07-2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 7 2005, 06:03 PM
there is no real easy way IMHO.

Cut out the spare wheel well and rig it to pop back in. Lots of room to slide the trans back there,best idea I had all day.

Lawrence


Yeah, I was wondering about various holes in the floor pan being of help.... how about up front?

latebrake
12-07-2005, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 06:08 PM
Yeah, I was wondering about various holes in the floor pan being of help.... how about up front?

67545



If you are asking bout the holes in the rear deck,I used them to lower the trans with cargo straps once. Made some extra ones forward,helps if you are working alone.

not sure about what you mean about up front. Its pretty much all required stuff up there(bell housing/fly wheel/pressure plate/bearing and fork.

You can cheat the T tube spline with the connector at the trans coupling. Two allen sets and move it all onto one side of the tube splines. good for about three inches.

The pain is the ass is the t tube housing. it has EARS that keep it from moving and they will only allow you to slide the housing back a few inches. If you have to do this a lot with one car you can mod the tube and cut these off. A plate between the bell housing and the engine with four holes will let you use hime joints as a motor toqure arrestor and do the same thing at the bell housing for the trans. No engine or trans movement at all,still allowes you to keep the soft engine and trans mounts. Drop the whole thing in record time. Dont know if you can do this in IT.

Lawrence

Geo
12-07-2005, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 7 2005, 02:31 PM
as while we are off on 944 tangents.....

What is the trick to make clutch replacement easier?

67539


Pay someone else to do it. ;)

Geo
12-07-2005, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 7 2005, 12:01 PM
I understand but help me out a little here. I have a line on a very good (rear end damaged) 944S and have found a 944S2 as well. What does the 944S2 make stock and what does the BMW make stock. I have considered selling the E production 944 car and building another IT car. Cost is a little high in production. I know I should do my own homework but you guys know IT way better than me.

If its only 10 hp difference bewteen the 944S and the 944S2 I would just skip any letters and fights that comes with getting something classed,if at all workable anyway.

Lawrence

67534


The 944S was 188 bhp stock. The E36 Bimmer is 189 bhp stock. I can't imagine any car with more hp being classed in IT.

latebrake
12-08-2005, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Geo@Dec 7 2005, 09:10 PM
The 944S was 188 bhp stock. The E36 Bimmer is 189 bhp stock. I can't imagine any car with more hp being classed in IT.

67552


I didnt know it was that close. Sounds like the 944S is a good choise if you want to build a P car.

Tweeks may get close to 200 hp legal with out sending it out to Jon Milledge. I am guessing here. What are the BMW making in racing trim?

I have several dog box trans that I use in Production. Quaife and tricked ring stuff. Is anything other than stock ring and LSD parts legal in IT?

I know what. I could tie the engine to a virgin and lower it into a volcano during a full moon. I bet thats good for another 3 hp.

Lawrence

alexands
12-10-2005, 11:09 AM
This is a timely thread as I am looking to build a 944 ITS car. I've built a 951 for PCA, so am familiar with the 944 line. The 944S seems to be the way to go to be competitive in ITS. I'm familiar with 944 short-comings (#2 bearing, etc..) and I'm trying to figure out the additional shortcomings of the S model. I have heard about the timing chain between the 2 cams being a weak spot. Can anyone elaborate on that and point out any other things I should be concerned with?

Also, back in 2003 the 3.0 liter S2 engine was allowed in ITS if it was installed in a regular 944 car. Am I imagining this?

Scott

Andy Bettencourt
12-10-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by alexands@Dec 10 2005, 09:09 AM


Also, back in 2003 the 3.0 liter S2 engine was allowed in ITS if it was installed in a regular 944 car. Am I imagining this?

Scott

67819


Yes, you were imagining it.

AB

alexands
12-10-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 10 2005, 03:57 PM
Yes, you were imagining it.

AB

67823


Just checked the GCR. You're right. You can run the 3.0 litre in a 944 in GT class.

JimLill
12-11-2005, 12:20 PM
This relevant to 944 etc.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6815 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6815)

The S uses:

944 618 124 01
0261 200 080 (or 187)
CU151X

timo944
12-15-2005, 12:21 PM
Interesting thread - I haven't been following until today.

I've raced 944's in PCA, NASA 944CUP, and SCCA for 7 years in the southeast. It's a battle to keep a car legal for all three venues and still be competitive. Bottom line is this:

PCA is full of PCA-legal cars and is a ball. The racing is clean, the fields are large (up to 20 944's), and the competition for 1st place has always been heated. Sometimes it's ruined by a visitor from outside the SE who comes in with a well developed car (I'll refrain from using the "cheater" word). the problem with PCA is they treat us like kids sometimes. They can be overbearing with the 13/13 rule. However, they try to keep the competitioon fair and all in all it's a good time.

SCCA is fun but totally uncompetitive in a 44. However, I have done well in some enduros and for the last year have done enduros only. The longer the race, the better you do, but it all comes down to attrition. The 944 is very reliable, and as long as you have good air flow to the rad you should not have reliability problems.

NASA is fun in the SE, but I have heard that in the NE and Florida, there are a lot of questionable cars. They say that you can run either a PCA car or an SCCA car. I have seen many cars that fit neither definition, and are flat out illegal for either series. There is no enforcement (at least in the south), so you run what you bring. It's fun however - NASA is very laid back. This year a bunch of us are going to run the series for points.

My car has a bone stock engine with 183,000 miles. I just replaced the rod bearings for the first time (ever). I have the Stahl exhaust (worth every penny for the reliability) and a 2.5" exhaust, and use a factory air box with K&N. The chip is stock. I get 139.7hp at the wheels, according to Balanced performance's dyno. We played with the air flow meter spring and the computer switch to get this far. Personally, I woudl not build a 944S. The reason is that it woudl cost too much to convert, and I'm not convinced that it is a better solution.

The biggest problem is weight. At 2715 with driver in SCCA, and 2844 without driver in PCA , there is a huge spread. I am down to 2620lbs without the driver, so I can stand to lose another 100lb. To switch from SCCA to PCA, I bolt the add-on weight to the floor behind the driver so I don;t have to jack the weights around too much when I corner balance. This has worked really well.

I think that the investment $$$ to get the add'l HP are too high. Just collect junk motors, rebuild them and keep them ready in your garage (I have two!). I use only '88 pistons, and have a spare trans as well. Since the 944 will never have an ITS winning motor, there is no point in trying (until the rules change!).

If you're serious about ITS, you can build a car to the limit. You will do better in NASA and will run GT4S in PCA (if you care about NASA or PCA).

PCA is considering a rules change for 2007 that would make the 944 more competitive in GT class. If this becomes reality, I would gut the interior to SCCA specs and build the engine to ITS specs (i.e. ship to Jon Milledge).

It's a shame that there aren't more 944's racing in ITS. That may change this year as more 944S's come on to the track. I don;t see how a weight reduction will help that much - there are not many good (safe) ways to lose weight. We've proven in NASA that a difference of 200 lb. in a 944 does nto help that much with the lap times.

I've asked many of my buddies in PCA and NASA about ITS but they don;t seem interested. Oh well, their loss.

Tim Betteridge

JeffYoung
12-15-2005, 01:09 PM
Tim, thanks for the great post. I run a "marginal" ITS car as well (Triumph TR8, tons of torque but that is about it) and I understand some of the problems you guys face when thinking of running ITS.

At the same time, I really wish there was something that could be done to get all of the race built 944s (s and non-s) to run ITS, which is a great race series. I've obviously never run PCA, but I have some experience attending BMWCCA races and understand your comments on the "marque-based" series. SCCA is a bit more wild and wooly, but to me feels more like a true semi-professional race series. Plus, the thing I really like about ITS is that different makes with different strengths and weaknesses battle it out. Single marque racing (I run a Spec Miata occasionally) can get a bit boring, although I of course understand that with PCA different types of Porsches have different types of strengths and weaknesses.

I ran the NASA event at Roebling (where you there?) for fun and was shocked by the number of 944 race cars in attendance. WE (SCCA) SHOULD FIND A WAY TO GET THESE GUYS RUNNING ITS.

Based on what you've said, I'm not sure that a weight break to the 944 is going to help. Instead, the 325s have to be slowed or moved to a new, higher class.

If this happened, and the 944 could race semi-competively with RX7s, 240sxs, 240zs and GSR Integras, do you think the PCA and NASA cars would run ITS? Again, it seems to me that of all the non-SCCA race cars out there that COULD be running ITS, the gaggle of 944(s) in the SEDiv is the most attractive and the one that the ITAC and CRB should do the most to attract.

P.S. -- I love racing with 944s. They are the exact opposite of my car: I'm all torque and can turn on a dime (short wheelbase), but have no brakes, aero stinks top end and high speed stability is a bit questionable. Plus, putting the power down can be a problem sometimes. I have a blast racing with the 924s and 944s that do show up in ITS. Wish there were more of them.

P.S.S. -- Thanks again for the post. Very informative.

Andy Bettencourt
12-15-2005, 01:14 PM
Since I don't see the answer here: stock figures for the 944 S2 are:
208 HP and 207 ft-lb

30 more hp that the S and 50 more than the 'vanilla' 944.

If the CRB approves our 'correction' proposal, you would see the 944 lose some weight - a good chunk.

AB

latebrake
12-15-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 15 2005, 01:14 PM
Since I don't see the answer here: stock figures for the 944 S2 are:
208 HP and 207 ft-lb

30 more hp that the S and 50 more than the 'vanilla' 944.

If the CRB approves our 'correction' proposal, you would see the 944 lose some weight - a good chunk.

AB

68357


Cant get this thing to drop the quote,sorry about that.

The 944 cant run past mid pack in IT. The 944S cant be built much over 200hp legal in IT and that takes cash to get it that far. The 944S2 is a good maybe car for the BMW. Should the BMW be moved?? or let another car run with it in IT??

You have the same thing with the 944S2 as the others. Comes from the factory with good hp and takes a ton of cash to make any more,very little more in IT trim.
There would be a lot of cars coming from other groups to run IT with the 944S2 power plant. The woods are full of the 944 family and they are cheap compaired to the BMW. They could run with the NASA 944 cup as a Super Cup car and still run with SCCA IT as well as HSR and SVRA. Real good bang for the buck from any view.
944S2 engine with exhaust and intake upgrades and BANG, ITS race car for far less money than a Jon Millege built 944 or 944S car.
Sounds like the sprit and entent of IT racing from the get go. Change the nose and its a 944S2. 75 more cars in the SE alone in IT if it were done. Could do as much for IT as the RX7 did for production class a few years back. Something to think about and just my 2 cents of thinking.

Lawrence

Andy Bettencourt
12-16-2005, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 15 2005, 01:22 PM
Cant get this thing to drop the quote,sorry about that.

The 944 cant run past mid pack in IT. The 944S cant be built much over 200hp legal in IT and that takes cash to get it that far. The 944S2 is a good maybe car for the BMW. Should the BMW be moved?? or let another car run with it in IT??

You have the same thing with the 944S2 as the others. Comes from the factory with good hp and takes a ton of cash to make any more,very little more in IT trim.
There would be a lot of cars coming from other groups to run IT with the 944S2 power plant. The woods are full of the 944 family and they are cheap compaired to the BMW. They could run with the NASA 944 cup as a Super Cup car and still run with SCCA IT as well as HSR and SVRA. Real good bang for the buck from any view.
944S2 engine with exhaust and intake upgrades and BANG, ITS race car for far less money than a Jon Millege built 944 or 944S car.
Sounds like the sprit and entent of IT racing from the get go. Change the nose and its a 944S2. 75 more cars in the SE alone in IT if it were done. Could do as much for IT as the RX7 did for production class a few years back. Something to think about and just my 2 cents of thinking.

Lawrence

68378


Please don't use the BMW as the benchmark. It is one of the few cars in ITS that doesn't fit the current process. I believe the 944 (if it get approved for a correction) and the 944S fit the parameters...will they run up front everywhere? Who knows - but you can't class cars based on 'under-prep'. Every car costs a different amount to prep to the rules...the Porsche is just costs more than others. That is no reason to give it a special allowance that is not consistant with the IT rules.

AB

timo944
12-16-2005, 02:52 PM
I agree with you Andy - the E36 325 is an anomoloy in ways and a disappointment for the others running IT. It can't be a basis for comparison. In my opinion it's far too fast for ITS, but the GCR states somethgin to the effect of "if it ain't fast enough, don't blame us," so there is little room for complaining. Maybe with the compeition adjustments things can improve.

To answer your question Jeff, I believe that you could get more 944's in ITS by making it competitive by reducing weight (difficult) or adjusting fatser cars (E36 and RX7) to make them slower. I'd hate top see a class split in ITS, and I think that will only hurt IT. You could also move the 944 to ITA, but that may not be attractive with the CRX and such around.

There are historical factors here too:
- until recently the SCCA did not recognize PCA licenses. I once called a licensing chairman who told me that in his opinion PCA was not real racing because of the non-contact rule. That has filtered to many PCA racers who realize that racing with a non-contact rule is as hard as or harder than allowing minor rubbing. There are ome sore feelings out there about this
- Porsches in general have always been out-classed because they are a "performance" marque (not my opinion, but the opinion of many)
- The rules for IT and PCA are very different, as I detailed earlier, so it means removing the interior, rebalncing, etc between every race which many people do not want to do.

The next race for the Atlanta group is the NASA race in March. I will try to convince the guys to sign up for the March SARRC/ECR race as well, and maybe that will generate some interest. It woudl be good if a bunch of (non-competitive) 944's show up. Maybe if some other ITS drivers show up we can convince everybody!

BTW about the S2 - this car is in the same class as the 944Turbo in PCA. It has gobs of torque and good power. This years fast lap in the PCA race was 1:44.7 at 2932 lbs, and I've seen them run faster. I used to own a 1989 S2 street car, and was turning very fast laps as RA. It is not a candidate for ITS, but maybe for ITE. Of course, if they do let it in, I'll be the first on the track with one!

TB

latebrake
12-16-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 11:22 AM
Please don't use the BMW as the benchmark. It is one of the few cars in ITS that doesn't fit the current process. I believe the 944 (if it get approved for a correction) and the 944S fit the parameters...will they run up front everywhere? Who knows - but you can't class cars based on 'under-prep'. Every car costs a different amount to prep to the rules...the Porsche is just costs more than others. That is no reason to give it a special allowance that is not consistant with the IT rules.

AB

68462


I know,the BMW thing just came out. The last ITS race I saw at VIR had an "orange BMW' 16 seconds ahead of the second place car and it got worse. The BMW was short shifing so bad the driver could have been eating fries down the back strech.

How good was the second place car. Dont know, but he did get the second place spot with a whole field of IT cars so it had to be a lease an OK car. Right now if you arent driving a BMW you are going to be following one.
I like the BMW and dont want to sound like I am beating them up. If a ITS car has to be 5 years old then every year we count out cars with around 200 hp because thats all they are making now. Makes it easy to see the end of the road from here. Production has car 30+ year old cars and working hard to protect them.

The gas crunch may just play into ITS if the 200 hp bench mark goes away,right now you are looking a a big gap in cars in a few years.

Lawrence

JeffYoung
12-16-2005, 05:11 PM
The second place car was Steve Echerich. A great guy, and one of the best prepped and fastest Second Gen RX7s you will find. He finished second in the SARRC points to Kent Thompson this year and believe me, his car is fast. While Nick was new to the track, Steve and Nick had an incredible battle in the SARRC race at VIR in March. Very equally matched it seemed.

The orange BMW is also incredibly well built and incredibly well driven.

Make of that what you will.

Geo
12-17-2005, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by timo944@Dec 16 2005, 11:52 AM
To answer your question Jeff, I believe that you could get more 944's in ITS by making it competitive by reducing weight (difficult) ....

68498


I heard that from several folks. Then I had a frank discussion about the 944 with Jon Milledge and in his opinion a carefully prepared 10/10 944 could legally get down to 2500 lbs. That's not a typo. The 944 has a buttload of sound deadening that weighs a LOT. I cannot count how many times I've taken stuff off/out of the car I'm building and have been shocked just how heavy it is because it looked like nothing. There also is sound deadening that can only be removed by dipping the car (a considerable amount of stuff that can't be otherwise removed).

I think the 944 will at least have a attractive chance in ITS if the change proposed is approved. I don't think it will outrun a well prepped E36 (with proposed changes) or a RX-7, but it won't be passing fodder for ITA cars anymore.

Geo
12-17-2005, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 16 2005, 08:22 AM
Please don't use the BMW as the benchmark. It is one of the few cars in ITS that doesn't fit the current process. I believe the 944 (if it get approved for a correction) and the 944S fit the parameters...will they run up front everywhere? Who knows - but you can't class cars based on 'under-prep'. Every car costs a different amount to prep to the rules...the Porsche is just costs more than others. That is no reason to give it a special allowance that is not consistant with the IT rules.

AB

68462


Actually, I don't think the 944 is any more costly to build properly than any other car. I was told it would be expensive, but the only thing that is more expensive than say our SE-R is the engine. I don't know what a Sunbelt SR20DE would run, but I'd guesstimate 7.5k or so. Rumor has it a Milledge IT engine is around 10k. In the grand scheme of building an IT car, that cost is not huge.

The chassis stuff is just as expensive in the SE-R and the only advantage the 944 has is that some parts already exist for the 944 that would currently have to be custom made for the SE-R (a costly proposition potentially).

Fastfred92
12-18-2005, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Geo@Dec 17 2005, 05:17 AM
I heard that from several folks. Then I had a frank discussion about the 944 with Jon Milledge and in his opinion a carefully prepared 10/10 944 could legally get down to 2500 lbs. That's not a typo. The 944 has a buttload of sound deadening that weighs a LOT. I cannot count how many times I've taken stuff off/out of the car I'm building and have been shocked just how heavy it is because it looked like nothing. There also is sound deadening that can only be removed by dipping the car (a considerable amount of stuff that can't be otherwise removed).

I think the 944 will at least have a attractive chance in ITS if the change proposed is approved. I don't think it will outrun a well prepped E36 (with proposed changes) or a RX-7, but it won't be passing fodder for ITA cars anymore.

68561


Still needs to be a ITA car, having run one myself I dont think 2500 can happen, but then I am not 150 lbs myself

lateapex911
12-18-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 18 2005, 01:29 AM
Still needs to be a ITA car, having run one myself I dont think 2500 can happen, but then I am not 150 lbs myself

68618



An ITA car? Is it the slowest car in ITS???

latebrake
12-19-2005, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Geo@Dec 17 2005, 01:17 AM
I heard that from several folks. Then I had a frank discussion about the 944 with Jon Milledge and in his opinion a carefully prepared 10/10 944 could legally get down to 2500 lbs. That's not a typo. The 944 has a buttload of sound deadening that weighs a LOT. I cannot count how many times I've taken stuff off/out of the car I'm building and have been shocked just how heavy it is because it looked like nothing. There also is sound deadening that can only be removed by dipping the car (a considerable amount of stuff that can't be otherwise removed).

I think the 944 will at least have a attractive chance in ITS if the change proposed is approved. I don't think it will outrun a well prepped E36 (with proposed changes) or a RX-7, but it won't be passing fodder for ITA cars anymore.

68561


My E-Productin car has lexan,no sound material,carbon fenders,glass hood and is 2505# with me in it. 205# I know I could drop that some!!! It has an over built cage and that may account for the extra weight for the car. If I had the car dipped I could maybe get another 30 to 50 # off but I think that is overstated.
The NASA 944 Cup group has cars with extra rewards fat on the floor boards. Didnt change the lap times.

These cars are not hard to build and wont cost anymore that others and just may be cheaper because of the cost of the donor car. The engines are a little high but you arent going to get a ton of HP in ITS prep anyway so why not just run a low hr engine. Tons of cars,tons of aftermarket parts,lots of cars running somewhere already. If it got moved to ITA they would surely take a look at SCCA again.

Get the S2 approved at a good weight and you have new blood for sure.

Lawrence

Fastfred92
12-19-2005, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 18 2005, 07:49 PM
An ITA car? Is it the slowest car in ITS???

68637



Slowest ITS car is a open ended question b/c of prep level, that being said here in the SE it is very common to see mid level prep 944's get blasted by many ITA cars. The level of prep is not going to change, there is no incentive to 10/10 a 944. Get any of our adhoc / rules guys to explain with their mythical hp/lbs stuff how it is a S car??? This is a Porsche despite its roots and Porsche is not known for leaving tons of HP on the cutting room floor, its closer to maxed out in street form than many other IT candidates. The 80's tech DME is not overly mod friendly either. Appx. same HP as Integra (94-95 ITA cars)and Integra has better engine architecture for responding to mods, Integra has better suspension ( coilovers ) and tons more aftermarket support. I think you will see similar numbers with older Integra, 240SX etc etc. Dump weight if it make you feel good but it should be a A car at or below its current weight.

Andy Bettencourt
12-19-2005, 11:30 PM
First off, coilovers are legal for everyone so that has nothing to do with an IT comparison. Funny how Integra guys argue that they are way behing in suspension/drivetrain layout yet you think the 944 is worse.

Everyone get an idea for the types of letter we see? :bash_1_:

The 944 makes 157 stock hp. The RX-7 makes 160. We know the 7 responds much better to IT prep - how much difference in weight do you think these two cars should have in order to compete with each other?

We have some of the best prepped Integra's in the country up here in the NE. Top prep 944's from 3-4 years ago have run faster than track records - both at LRP and WGI long. Results are not the end-all but they sure raise a flag here.

You don't think the 944 at say, 2550, would make it a legitimate choice?

AB

timo944
12-19-2005, 11:48 PM
So what is the proposal for 944 weight? It's 2715 today.

Also - I believe that coil-overs are not leagl for the rear of a 944, but let me check, hang on.....................................OK - it says:

"Springs of any origin may be used, provided they are of the same number and type as originally fitted, i.e. coil, leaf, torsion bar......... "

I know that it later says that threaded body shock/struts are permitted, but I don;t think that permits coil overs in place of the torsion bars. Let me know if I'm wrong!

Having said that, I think the torsion bars work OK, except you can't really change them at the track.


Tim

its66
12-20-2005, 12:28 AM
I believe that there were a few M030 optioned cars-924S's anyway, maybe 944's also. These cars had a coil over in the rear. They may have been in addition to the torsion bar...

So, would it be legal to "create" an M030 car???

lateapex911
12-20-2005, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 19 2005, 07:04 PM
Slowest ITS car is a open ended question b/c of prep level, that being said here in the SE it is very common to see mid level prep 944's get blasted by many ITA cars. The level of prep is not going to change, there is no incentive to 10/10 a 944. Get any of our adhoc / rules guys to explain with their mythical hp/lbs stuff how it is a S car??? ................. Appx. same HP as Integra (94-95 ITA cars)and Integra has better engine architecture for responding to mods, Integra has better suspension ( coilovers ) and tons more aftermarket support. I think you will see similar numbers with older Integra, 240SX etc etc. Dump weight if it make you feel good but it should be a A car at or below its current weight.

68714



I'll check with an adhoc guy on the lbs/hp stuff......

OK, an ITS 240SX puts in the 150 range to the ground...the 944 is closer to 187? IIRC. And it's a pretty nice motor for torque too.

That's close to a 35 or so hp difference.

The chassis was regarded as the best balanced, best handling chassis for nearly a decade. I have owned an RX-7 turbo or two, and driven scads of 944s, 944S's, and 944Turbos, and faulting the chassis is tough to do....in stock form it certainly had the RX-7 in it's sights. I think that coil over "helper" springs could be very useful tuning tools.

Of course I wasn't comparing half efforts and full efffort cars.

The question still stands...is the 944 the slowest (or the most over-gunned) car in ITS?

Forget the E36 for a minute....if the car were to stay in S, how would you make it appropriate?

Geo
12-20-2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911+Dec 20 2005, 12:31 AM-->
I'll check with an adhoc guy on the lbs/hp stuff......

OK, an ITS 240SX puts in the 150 range to the ground...the 944 is closer to 187? IIRC. And it's a pretty nice motor for torque too.

That's close to a 35 or so hp difference.

68750
[/b]

Actually, the 8v 944 puts out 185 at the crank in full tilt boogie ITS trim which would put it in almost the exact same place as the 240SX. I'll bet torque is almost the same as well.

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911@Dec 20 2005, 12:31 AM
The chassis was regarded as the best balanced, best handling chassis for nearly a decade. I have owned an RX-7 turbo or two, and driven scads of 944s, 944S&#39;s, and 944Turbos, and faulting the chassis is tough to do....in stock form it certainly had the RX-7 in it&#39;s sights. I think that coil over "helper" springs could be very useful tuning tools.

Of course I wasn&#39;t comparing half efforts and full efffort cars.

68750


But why compare stock cars? Last I knew we don&#39;t race &#39;em stock.

I&#39;m not sure if it&#39;s the most out gunned car in ITS. There are certainly a bunch that had been poorly classified. It&#39;s certainly the most out gunned car that exists in more than one or two examples. I fear the 944 will suffer the same fate at the 1st gen RX-7. We&#39;ll have to wait to see what happens with the proposal in front of the CRB.

latebrake
12-20-2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Geo@Dec 20 2005, 09:37 AM
Actually, the 8v 944 puts out 185 at the crank in full tilt boogie ITS trim which would put it in almost the exact same place as the 240SX. I&#39;ll bet torque is almost the same as well.
But why compare stock cars? Last I knew we don&#39;t race &#39;em stock.

I&#39;m not sure if it&#39;s the most out gunned car in ITS. There are certainly a bunch that had been poorly classified. It&#39;s certainly the most out gunned car that exists in more than one or two examples. I fear the 944 will suffer the same fate at the 1st gen RX-7. We&#39;ll have to wait to see what happens with the proposal in front of the CRB.

68757


The 924 ran in D production years ago and was a full coil over front and rear. The mo30 was only coil overs in the front and was a sway bar front and rear combo with larger T bars for the rear.

unless something has changed the t bars have to stay in ITS.

My car was built by a good mch and racer . Milledge parts and data logger computer,no balance shaft and crank fired. It made 186 hp on the engine dyno and put 148 hp to the wheels. Not guessing or internet hp but head the tape hp.

If I could get the 2550# weight I would build another ITS 944. I dont think it will run up front but would be a lot more fun. NASA runs 944 in ITS trim. If you get the 2550#,they get it as well. They stand a better chance running with each other than the current ITS cars in SCCA. If its lower weight they will try SCCA again,may stay or at least run more often.

Lawrence

Andy Bettencourt
12-20-2005, 11:47 AM
T-bar rear - yes...wasn&#39;t thinking along those lines when replying to the comment.

The highest stock HP ITS 240SX makes 155. 2 less than the 944. *IF* the 944 was reduced to 2550, it would be 100lbs less than the 240SX.

So lets compare:

240SX
155hp * 25% IT-prep increase = 194hp.

944
157hp * Jon M. know best chp = 185hp.

I think these cars are just fine in the same class. The 944 may not be a world-beater in ITS but it is no slam-dunk in ITA.

AB

latebrake
12-20-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 20 2005, 11:47 AM
T-bar rear - yes...wasn&#39;t thinking along those lines when replying to the comment.

The highest stock HP ITS 240SX makes 155. 2 less than the 944. *IF* the 944 was reduced to 2550, it would be 100lbs less than the 240SX.

So lets compare:

240SX
155hp * 25% IT-prep increase = 194hp.

944
157hp * Jon M. know best chp = 185hp.

I think these cars are just fine in the same class. The 944 may not be a world-beater in ITS but it is no slam-dunk in ITA.

AB

68769


Hi Andy,

I dont know what the 240 weight is in IT. What is it? The problem with the 944 in IT just may be that the top drives arent driving many of them. All the upgrades wont fix that. If the playing field is truly level,or as flat as it can be made with machines then the bark about the 944 not being a contender in ITS is just the way of it and thats that.

On the other hand there are a ton of these cars around for donors and if its Ok for 9 to 10 hp on one side why cant it be OK on the other side? If the 240/944 are 9 Hp apart now and the 100# less for the 944 where does the math come out there? I used to know the hp/weight was but forgot. I was trying to increase the hp of my car by getting rid of some of my fat butt and somehow the 14.5# gave me one more HP seems to come to mind here. help me out some if you know. HA!!

Will the 2550# 944 have more than 9 Hp over 240 at current weight?
The 944 is going to drop 18 to 20% hp through the drive line. This can be made a little better with AT fluid in the trans and keeping the T-tube real lubed but not much. I did the AT fluid thing but put the red line back in,just didnt feel like a good idea to me.

Lawrence

Andy Bettencourt
12-20-2005, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by latebrake@Dec 20 2005, 11:08 AM
Hi Andy,

I dont know what the 240 weight is in IT. What is it? The problem with the 944 in IT just may be that the top drives arent driving many of them. All the upgrades wont fix that. If the playing field is truly level,or as flat as it can be made with machines then the bark about the 944 not being a contender in ITS is just the way of it and thats that.

On the other hand there are a ton of these cars around for donors and if its Ok for 9 to 10 hp on one side why cant it be OK on the other side? If the 240/944 are 9 Hp apart now and the 100# less for the 944 where does the math come out there? I used to know the hp/weight was but forgot. I was trying to increase the hp of my car by getting rid of some of my fat butt and somehow the 14.5# gave me one more HP seems to come to mind here. help me out some if you know. HA!!

Will the 2550# 944 have more than 9 Hp over 240 at current weight?
The 944 is going to drop 18 to 20% hp through the drive line. This can be made a little better with AT fluid in the trans and keeping the T-tube real lubed but not much. I did the AT fluid thing but put the red line back in,just didnt feel like a good idea to me.

Lawrence

68783


The 240&#39;s in ITS have a min weight of 2650. We have to use a repeatable process when we do this so who is driving them really doesn&#39;t matter. It&#39;s a data point, but not something that would carry any more weight than anything else.

I am not sure what you are getting at on the hp. 9hp on one side and 100lbs difference vs. 9lbs on the otherside with...what? 100lbs more for a 200lb difference? Not sure what you are asking for here.

All the numbers for the math are there for you (plus some more for you):

240SX: 194hp estimate / 2650 = 13.45
944: 185hp documented / 2550 = 13.78
944S: 210hp documented / 2850 = 13.57
Integra GSR: 200hp estimate / 2680 = 13.45

Would you like to factor in the fact the Porsches have 10% larger brakes than the Nissan (283mm vs. 257mm) and 8% larger than the Integra?

From my experience, most RWD cars drop about 18% through the driveline.

Like I said, it may not be the BEST car for the class, but it ain&#39;t crap either. The PROPOSED correction should make things much better.

Fastfred92
12-20-2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 20 2005, 06:05 PM
The 240&#39;s in ITS have a min weight of 2650. We have to use a repeatable process when we do this so who is driving them really doesn&#39;t matter. It&#39;s a data point, but not something that would carry any more weight than anything else.

I am not sure what you are getting at on the hp. 9hp on one side and 100lbs difference vs. 9lbs on the otherside with...what? 100lbs more for a 200lb difference? Not sure what you are asking for here.

All the numbers for the math are there for you (plus some more for you):

240SX: 194hp estimate / 2650 = 13.45
944: 185hp documented / 2550 = 13.78
944S: 210hp documented / 2850 = 13.57
Integra GSR: 200hp estimate / 2680 = 13.45

Would you like to factor in the fact the Porsches have 10% larger brakes than the Nissan (283mm vs. 257mm) and 8% larger than the Integra?

From my experience, most RWD cars drop about 18% through the driveline.

Like I said, it may not be the BEST car for the class, but it ain&#39;t crap either. The PROPOSED correction should make things much better.

68788


Andy
What is the target hp/weight for A??

latebrake
12-20-2005, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 20 2005, 02:05 PM
The 240&#39;s in ITS have a min weight of 2650. We have to use a repeatable process when we do this so who is driving them really doesn&#39;t matter. It&#39;s a data point, but not something that would carry any more weight than anything else.

I am not sure what you are getting at on the hp. 9hp on one side and 100lbs difference vs. 9lbs on the otherside with...what? 100lbs more for a 200lb difference? Not sure what you are asking for here.

All the numbers for the math are there for you (plus some more for you):

240SX: 194hp estimate / 2650 = 13.45
944: 185hp documented / 2550 = 13.78
944S: 210hp documented / 2850 = 13.57
Integra GSR: 200hp estimate / 2680 = 13.45

Would you like to factor in the fact the Porsches have 10% larger brakes than the Nissan (283mm vs. 257mm) and 8% larger than the Integra?

From my experience, most RWD cars drop about 18% through the driveline.

Like I said, it may not be the BEST car for the class, but it ain&#39;t crap either. The PROPOSED correction should make things much better.

68788


Maybe I am off base here. I thought the 2550# for the 944 was not going to happen. 13.45 for the 240 and 13.78 for the 944 is splitting frog hairs and should but the cars on a level playing field hp/# wise.

I thought the last post had the 240 at 9 more hp than the 944 at a higher weight. and was just stating that the difference in proposed weight for the 944 could give it 9 more hp, weight to hp wise over the 240 should just as OK. You know,kind of like if we are going to give an advantage to someone lets make it ME!!
Just having fun Andy.
I dont know you or drive in IT for that matter so I have a small dog in this fight but I just may build another car someday and I like the 944 platform.

Dont pay any mind to that brake thing,can we just forget about that part? Cant hurt to ask.

Lawrence

924Guy
12-22-2005, 05:12 PM
Sorry, Andy - but I GOTTA take issue with your gross assumption on the brake thing there. You need a more precise comparison of brake swept area, not rotor diameter. The reason why is that the hubs on our cars are HUGE. The bolt circle is 5x130mm. As a result, while outer rotor diameter is larger than usual, there is additional area lost inside, so it&#39;s not the huge advantage you think. As for rotor effective diameter - big deal, change pads, same difference.

Just trying to keep the accounting straight. FWIW, I feel the following about the 944&#39;s:
- 2550 is doable in IT-legal trim - but will be a challenge if the driver&#39;s not up to his/her end of the bargain! ;) My 924 weighs about 2400 without me or ballast, and still maybe 1/4 tank of gas; weighs 2600 and change after a race.

- I still doubt the 8V cars will be able to really compete against the big guns in ITS; I think it&#39;s more likely to succeed in ITA with more weight thrown on it. But then, caution may be the higher priority at the moment, and a weight reduction is still progress vs. nothing.

- All those guys running 944Cup, Spec 944, and GTS Challenge with their 944&#39;s aren&#39;t going to leave and jump ship to ITS next year. They&#39;ve already got a happy place they really love to play, that fits them perfectly. Those seeking a higher challenge do look to ITS, but are discouraged by the current situation and I don&#39;t think they&#39;re going to be swayed by moving 150#. They&#39;re not exactly running 10/10ths ITS cars right now. If you&#39;re after them, you&#39;re going to need to let them fight it out with the ITA cars with ballast. Even if that turns out not to be the right thing for IT. Hey, all those PCA cars still have carpet, remember! This is as much culture as it is competitiveness.

JimLill
12-23-2005, 09:53 AM
Regarding brakes....

- larger diameters can offer some small advantage on cooling assuming the wheel size is appropriate

- correct, swept area is what counts, so you need to look at pad dimensions to get the minor and major diameters and calculate from there.

- larger diameters do offer more leverage, so more brake torque is generated for the same pad force albeit at the expense of "pad speed"

Bottom Line: comparison can be tricky!

924Guy
12-23-2005, 12:48 PM
Agreed on all counts, but that&#39;s why I was bringing up my points - either get it right or don&#39;t even bring it up! Sorry, being an engineer on the brake side of things, I get real picky about this kind of stuff.

The other issue I have here about rotor diameter relating to brake output - it&#39;s irrelevant to an IT discussion if you&#39;re simply trying to talk about specific brake output. That&#39;s because friction material selection is even more fundamental to brake output, yet it&#39;s unregulated in IT. Not that it should be - just pointing out that one uncontrolled variable invalidates the rest of the argument, IMO. So I feel that there can be excessive focus put on the idea of brake output in classifying IT cars, relative to the amount of regulation applied.

Andy Bettencourt
12-23-2005, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by 924Guy@Dec 23 2005, 10:48 AM
Agreed on all counts, but that&#39;s why I was bringing up my points - either get it right or don&#39;t even bring it up! Sorry, being an engineer on the brake side of things, I get real picky about this kind of stuff.

The other issue I have here about rotor diameter relating to brake output - it&#39;s irrelevant to an IT discussion if you&#39;re simply trying to talk about specific brake output. That&#39;s because friction material selection is even more fundamental to brake output, yet it&#39;s unregulated in IT. Not that it should be - just pointing out that one uncontrolled variable invalidates the rest of the argument, IMO. So I feel that there can be excessive focus put on the idea of brake output in classifying IT cars, relative to the amount of regulation applied.

69089


So what do your swept are comparisons show on a 944/924/944S vs. the competition?

While your point is valid, I still see no data that shows the Porsche doesn&#39;t have an advantage (or disadvantage).

AB

924Guy
12-23-2005, 05:15 PM
So what do your swept are comparisons show on a 944/924/944S vs. the competition?

While your point is valid, I still see no data that shows the Porsche doesn&#39;t have an advantage (or disadvantage).

I don&#39;t have any data for other cars, sorry. (Edit - so I haven&#39;t bothered to determine it for our cars)

Advantage or disadvantage - where? In brake size? In brake output? Specifically what charactaristics of the brake package on a car is the CRB concerned with when reviewing classifications/weights/performance potential?

Finally - did I say that the Porsches does not have an advantage, or has a disadvantage? Please read my comments again, then tell me what you think I said or implied; if I am misunderstood I&#39;d like to clear that up.

OK, I&#39;ll take my numbers nerd hat off now...

Andy Bettencourt
12-23-2005, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by 924Guy@Dec 23 2005, 03:15 PM
I don&#39;t have any data for other cars, sorry. (Edit - so I haven&#39;t bothered to determine it for our cars)

Advantage or disadvantage - where? In brake size? In brake output? Specifically what charactaristics of the brake package on a car is the CRB concerned with when reviewing classifications/weights/performance potential?

Finally - did I say that the Porsches does not have an advantage, or has a disadvantage? Please read my comments again, then tell me what you think I said or implied; if I am misunderstood I&#39;d like to clear that up.

OK, I&#39;ll take my numbers nerd hat off now...

69102


I thought you said that the brake size wasn&#39;t an advantage because of hub size etc. I agree that you have to measure swept area to truely understand, so I figured you had that data since you implied the 944 didn&#39;t have superior brakes as compared to the others I quoted.

AB

Geo
12-24-2005, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by 924Guy@Dec 23 2005, 09:48 AM
Agreed on all counts, but that&#39;s why I was bringing up my points - either get it right or don&#39;t even bring it up! Sorry, being an engineer on the brake side of things, I get real picky about this kind of stuff.

The other issue I have here about rotor diameter relating to brake output - it&#39;s irrelevant to an IT discussion if you&#39;re simply trying to talk about specific brake output. That&#39;s because friction material selection is even more fundamental to brake output, yet it&#39;s unregulated in IT. Not that it should be - just pointing out that one uncontrolled variable invalidates the rest of the argument, IMO. So I feel that there can be excessive focus put on the idea of brake output in classifying IT cars, relative to the amount of regulation applied.

69089


Being a 944 guy I&#39;d love to say we got shafted a bit on the brakes. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s true. Overall I think the car should have caught a bit better break (pun intended), but I think it&#39;s in the range where arguing is rather moot. I do of course agree with your point, however gross differences can and should be taken into account. We all know the 944 does have excellent brakes (for whatever reason) and say the 240Z has crummy brakes.

Like Andy, as a member of the ITAC I would be interested in your professional opinion what we should take into account. Keep in mind that as you noted, friction material is free, so assume the same or optimal friction material for comparison.

924Guy
12-24-2005, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 23 2005, 05:07 PM
I thought you said that the brake size wasn&#39;t an advantage because of hub size etc. I agree that you have to measure swept area to truely understand, so I figured you had that data since you implied the 944 didn&#39;t have superior brakes as compared to the others I quoted.

AB

69106


Sorry - those were your assumptions only. I said that the advantage was overstated because the abnormally large (Porsches are the only cars I&#39;ve ever seen with a bolt circle approaching 130mm) hub size.

I do agree that the comparison should be of swept area, as the most technically meaningful (IMO) data point. In addition to the obvious, which is to say disc vs drum and solid vs. vented, which I&#39;m more than sure has long been taken into account.

Thanks...

924Guy
12-24-2005, 11:32 AM
Oh, yeah, I suspect the reason the 924/944 is felt to have better than average brakes is more a function of vehicle balance and suspension design than raw brake output. Those who&#39;ve raced the 924 with the solid disc/rear drum setup have reported similar excellent properties (once a proper race material is installed and the rear drums are properly adjusted). Having recently beat the crap out of a C5 on an autox, I can say the P-cars are definitely far more stable under heavy braking! But then, the C5 is a classic example of a car that only does one thing well at a time, and I digress... :lol:

JimLill
12-24-2005, 04:49 PM
re: Brakes.... let&#39;s assume Kinetic Energy, thus vehicle weight and swept area are the only factors.

The 944S has a ~8% disadvantage weight-wise but a 24-29% advantage swept area-wise based upon approx. pad sizes.

Andy Bettencourt
12-25-2005, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by 924Guy@Dec 24 2005, 09:32 AM
But then, the C5 is a classic example of a car that only does one thing well at a time, and I digress... :lol:

69143


Except a C5 has won Super Stock at the Solo Nationals since 2000...

:)

AB

924Guy
12-25-2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by JimLill+Dec 24 2005, 03:49 PM-->
re: Brakes.... let&#39;s assume Kinetic Energy, thus vehicle weight and swept area are the only factors.[/b]
I&#39;m good with that, I feel that&#39;s appropriate

<!--QuoteBegin-JimLill@Dec 24 2005, 03:49 PM
The 944S has a ~8% disadvantage weight-wise but a 24-29% advantage swept area-wise based upon approx. pad sizes.

69153

Can&#39;t argue against that - I don&#39;t have data. I assume you&#39;ve taken a survey of some leading ITS competitors? Which ones?

JimLill
12-25-2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by 924Guy@Dec 25 2005, 11:49 AM
I&#39;m good with that, I feel that&#39;s appropriate
Can&#39;t argue against that - I don&#39;t have data. I assume you&#39;ve taken a survey of some leading ITS competitors? Which ones?

69172


The 240SX and Integra cited above in the thread.......

RR
12-27-2005, 07:14 PM
You are totaly wrong about brake size. The 944 and 944S use the exact same caliper, rotor and pad. Look it up on any parts list. In fact the only difference in the two cars besides the head is the gears are about 3-5% taller, making the 944S gears/tranny much worse for racing.

JimLill
12-27-2005, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by RR@Dec 27 2005, 07:14 PM
You are totaly wrong about brake size. The 944 and 944S use the exact same caliper, rotor and pad. Look it up on any parts list. In fact the only difference in the two cars besides the head is the gears are about 3-5% taller, making the 944S gears/tranny much worse for racing.

69343


I&#39;m not sure who you are replying to....

My analysis is for the 944S (using dims from ITS specs) to the 240SX and Integra

RR
12-28-2005, 11:27 AM
I thought you were comparing the 944 to the 944S. If you want an interesting brake comparison, check the front double-piston RX7 swept/area size to the single piston 944. I think the RX7 has quite the advantage, would anyone disagree?

Andy Bettencourt
12-28-2005, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by RR@Dec 28 2005, 09:27 AM
I thought you were comparing the 944 to the 944S. If you want an interesting brake comparison, check the front double-piston RX7 swept/area size to the single piston 944. I think the RX7 has quite the advantage, would anyone disagree?

69381


Well show us the data on the swept area for both. I don&#39;t know how to calculate it without exact dimensions but I can do some crude figuring...

(EDIT) See Jim&#39;s excellent link below. Looks like the Porsche&#39;s have the brakes we thought they did.

AB

JimLill
12-28-2005, 12:51 PM
number of pistons has nothing to do with swept area..........

I add those cars to my Excel sheet and post more data later.........

JimLill
12-28-2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 28 2005, 12:51 PM
number of pistons has nothing to do with swept area..........


and.......... my calcs so far have only dealt with the swept area of the disc. I think pad length and piston type have to be considered too, but more for effectivity, temp rise, and lifetime.... get&#39;s complicated!

Here&#39;s the latest Disc Swept Area calcs. I scaled pad height off the Hawk drawings.

http://www.r-series.org/swpt.html

JimLill
12-28-2005, 03:14 PM
Here&#39;s the math needed to calculate braking power:

http://www.thermoanalytics.com/applications/mom/mom-02-2005

http://www.thermoanalytics.com/application...nsfer_Power.pdf (http://www.thermoanalytics.com/applications/mom/mom-02-2005/Brake_Heat_Transfer_Power.pdf)

JimLill
12-28-2005, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 28 2005, 12:12 PM
(EDIT) See Jim&#39;s excellent link below. Looks like the Porsche&#39;s have the brakes we thought they did.


Before we run with my swept area data, let me go through the whole brake power analysis.

JimLill
12-29-2005, 10:58 AM
The results are in!....

I don&#39;t think you can really accurately calculate the real braking power that can be generated based solely on dimensions etc.. Even ignoring friction material, things like caliper style and thermal differences make it tough to judge one system against another.

I redid my spreadsheet (as linked above). It calculates swept area and pad area for each axle, but for a single pad/rotor side per axle. Obviously, you have X4 at each end. The ranking would still be the same.

I devised my own scoring system using the best swept or pad area as a score of 100 and ranking others from there. The average is for the 4 scores for each car. Probably a poor scoring system, but you can look at the numbers and devise your own.

Before declaring a victor, you also need to consider vehicle weight

Andy Bettencourt
12-29-2005, 11:10 AM
Jim,

Very cool stuff. Thanks for doing the excersize. IMHO, it refutes the contention that the 944&#39;s don&#39;t have excellent brakes compared to the class (E36 aside).

I would say that a 944 8V at 2575ish would be one hell of a car under braking.

AB

JimLill
12-29-2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by RR@Dec 28 2005, 11:27 AM
I thought you were comparing the 944 to the 944S. If you want an interesting brake comparison, check the front double-piston RX7 swept/area size to the single piston 944. I think the RX7 has quite the advantage, would anyone disagree?

69381


You&#39;re right that a 2 piston fixed caliper has some advantage over a single piston floating type. Trying to assess that advantage via analysis is pretty tricky. In theory, the same force is available, but we all know that it practice it just doesn&#39;t work out that way.

The single piston floating design, whether it be street or track apps, can be less effective due to binding and twist. So for a 944 (and it is no accident that Porsche put different brakes on the Turbo models), it is pretty important to keep things cleaned and pads squared up.

When I used to have roadrace motorcycles in the early 80&#39;s, and had a few setups with floating calipers, I would either toss tapered pads or flat sand them square to prevent twist and thus binding.

So, you could take my swept/pad area analysis and apply a correction factor for caliper design, probably 10-15% less for cars with single piston/floating calipers.

924Guy
12-29-2005, 12:06 PM
Hmmm... I think your source numbers may not be as good as you&#39;d hoped. The rear pad size for the 944 is definitely oversize; the 924S sitting in my garage right now has rear pads measuring 2.875"x1.625", for a pad area of 2993mm^2.

The rear rotor measures 289mm OD, but 200mm ID. The front rotor OD you likewise have already, but it looks like the ID may be as low as 167mm (manual lists active brake diameters as 224.6mm front, 242mm rear).

Not sure how this factors into your ratings.

Comparison, from the factory manual (since I don&#39;t have the front apart and don&#39;t plan to); it doesn&#39;t give individual pad sizes, but lists brake pad surface per wheel. The numbers are 92 cm^2 per wheel for the front, and 63cm^2 for the rear, for a total of 310cm^2.

Your front pad dims would give a pad surface per front wheel of 117.5cm^2, so it looks like they&#39;re a bit larger than is correct. This is directionally consistent with the rear, but not so drastic - I wonder if the rear 944 pad you picked might have been from the S2? The S2 shows an even 86cm^2 per wheel front and rear - pretty darn close to what you estimated, yes.

JimLill
12-29-2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by 924Guy@Dec 29 2005, 12:06 PM
Hmmm... I think your source numbers may not be as good as you&#39;d


Have any Hawk HB-nnn numbers I can use?

JimLill
12-29-2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by 924Guy@Dec 29 2005, 12:06 PM
The rear rotor measures 289mm OD, but 200mm ID.

How are you geting the 200mm ID? Remember the only part of the disc that "works" is that rubbed by the pad frcition material. 289-200= 89mm, a pad with 3.6 inches of height.

I&#39;ll hold off on revisiting my math etc. until I get the correct pad dimensions via using Hawk or FMSI numbers.

JimLill
12-29-2005, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 29 2005, 12:33 PM
How are you geting the 200mm ID?

I found a dumb math error which I am now fixing.... so standby for a new chart.

JimLill
12-29-2005, 01:26 PM
OK new files available....

- the areas calculated are now per wheel, 2 pads and 2 sides of disc
- I removed the score/ranking scheme, judge for yourself
- this is still based on Hawk HB-xxx pads as noted
- Hawk dwgs are pretty good, I used them to estimate actual friction material areas
- I have now included an Excel file you can play with

http://www.r-series.org/swpt-1.html
http://www.r-series.org/swpt-1.xls

RR
12-29-2005, 03:20 PM
JIm how are you getting these numbers. The pad size (height and length) on the 944 is smallest of the group. The rotor is only couple cm&#39;s larger, and your final sweep on the 944 blows the comp away? When you say sweep, does this mean area covered by the pad, by percentage of rotor size?

JimLill
12-29-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by RR@Dec 29 2005, 03:20 PM
JIm how are you getting these numbers. The pad size (height and length) on the 944 is smallest of the group. The rotor is only couple cm&#39;s larger, and your final sweep on the 944 blows the comp away? When you say sweep, does this mean area covered by the pad, by percentage of rotor size?

69501


The rotor OD comes from the ITS tables starting on ITCS-17 and on

The rotor ID is the OD less 2X the pad height

OD and ID give you the swept area of the rotor, a ring

pad dims come from the Hawk info. Using a dial caliper and calculator, I worked to "guesstimate" the friction area dims.

I&#39;m no math wiz, so may still have a math error in there. If you have Excel, you can look at my formulae on the XLS

RR
12-29-2005, 06:16 PM
ok ill look at your files. But seat of the pants Ive driven944, RX7and E36. I felt the bmw had the best brakes, then RX7 then 944, not a huge diff just subtle mindyou. But your numbers would make one believe the 944 absolutly smokes everyone, which in track conditions it does not. just my thoughts. Good luck

JimLill
12-29-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by RR@Dec 29 2005, 06:16 PM
ok ill look at your files. But seat of the pants Ive driven944, RX7and E36. I felt the bmw had the best brakes, then RX7 then 944, not a huge diff just subtle mindyou. But your numbers would make one believe the 944 absolutly smokes everyone, which in track conditions it does not. just my thoughts. Good luck

69525


I think the numbers are hard to interpret. I feel that caliper-type and pad area contribute more to the braking power than the swept area of the disc. A larger disc diameter gives improved leverage, but the 944 is not that much bigger. Also, the 944 gains swept area by pad height but as you see the pad area is nothing special.

So your observations match the numbers if they are interpreted that way. I think there&#39;s a danger in looking at numbers to determine brake performance.

AND... we have not even looked at overheating and life on this...

Thanks for your input.....

924Guy
12-30-2005, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 29 2005, 11:33 AM
How are you geting the 200mm ID? Remember the only part of the disc that "works" is that rubbed by the pad frcition material. 289-200= 89mm, a pad with 3.6 inches of height.

I&#39;ll hold off on revisiting my math etc. until I get the correct pad dimensions via using Hawk or FMSI numbers.

69463


As I said, that was a direct measurement of exactly the functioning area of the rotor, based on wear surface! Direct measurement of a rotor taken off a car.

Please, Jim, I do appreciate what you&#39;re doing here, but in order for this comparison to have any value, it must be accurate. Hawk clearly lists the applications for the 924/944 incorrectly. My values and data come either from direct measurement from a stock, unmodified car, or from the factory service manuals, as noted. There is NOWAYINHELL the pads you list for the rear of the car would ever fit. Wrong car, flat out. Those are clearly 944S2 pads, which has a completely different brake system. Wrong wrong wrong.

Your method for calculating rotor ID I agree with, where the pad dims are correct - that&#39;s appropriate and fairly close, if understood to still be an estimate.

I looked at the Hawk website - comes up with completely the wrong front and rear pads when searching on &#39;86 944. Hmm, wonder if that has anything to do with why I don&#39;t run Hawks? It can&#39;t even find a listing for the &#39;84 944. I recommend you stick with the factory sources. I&#39;ve quoted the pad areas below. Your estimates are high for both front and rear. Please revise to reflect the true ITS configuration of this car.

I maintain that to do anything less would invalidate your comparison. I do hope that your info for the other cars is more accurate, but I have no way of checking.

JimLill
12-30-2005, 01:08 PM
good feedback............ do you have the FMSI numbers for the correct pads?

924Guy
12-30-2005, 01:08 PM
OK, correcting the 944 numbers based on factory data I supplied, we end up with the following:
Front pad area: 92 cm^2 (smallest of the bunch listed, 71% of the 240SX)
Front swept area: 811 cm^2 (1% larger than the BMW)

Rear pad area: 63 cm^2 (at the bottom end, 70% of the BMW)
Rear swept area: 684 cm^2 (greatest of the list, about 13% more than the BMW)

I&#39;ll see if I can find some online copy of the data I&#39;m supplying, so I don&#39;t have to scan it myself...

JimLill
12-30-2005, 01:21 PM
Let&#39;s start with Porsche Part #&#39;s from the PET as it seems many online sources incorrectly show Turbo or S2 pads.

For late 944 and 944S NA, I show

F 944 351 951 02 and R 944 352 951 02

924Guy
12-30-2005, 01:33 PM
Works for me. For the front, I show 944.351.951.02 for 924/931/944/924S/944S 79-88. 944T (and 944 S2) show either 964.351.939.02 or 965.351.939.03. For the rear, it&#39;s 944.352.951.02 for 924/931/944/924S/944S 79-88, and 964.351.939.02 for 944T/944S2. Yep, matches your #&#39;s.

I&#39;m still looking for a Hawk reference for the 924/931/944/924S/944S 79-88.

924Guy
12-30-2005, 01:55 PM
I think I just spotted the problem with the brake pad size information you&#39;re using from Hawk. I thikn it&#39;s been staring me in the face. You&#39;re showing the HB199 and HB198, I&#39;m thinking, for the 944? Well, per the diagrams in my Pegasus catalog (and I&#39;m sure the same at hawkperformance.com) the dimensions shown on the drawings are for the backing plates, not the friction material. Naturally, this leads to an overestimation of the actual pad area. For the fronts it&#39;s slight but noticeable; for the rears it&#39;s substantially over. This can be seen fairly well on page 43 of the catalog at http://www.hawkperformance.com/docs/catalog_2004.pdf

My rear pad measurement, as noted, was a direct measurement of the friction material on the car (new stock pads). Calculations based on that matched fairly well with the pad area shown in the factory manual, as noted.

JimLill
12-30-2005, 02:43 PM
I have been reducing the friction material by guestimate... using various pad drawings, not just Hawk, and my Dial Calipers and Calculator to adjust...

I&#39;ll put your measured numbers into my spreadsheet

The files are revised for the 924/944. The other cars are as I guessed. So now we see that the Porsche is nothing special braking power-wise. It might have a miniscule edge thermal-wise, with the additional swept area.

ChrisCamadella
01-23-2006, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 6 2005, 10:06 PM
Is that crank or WHP? With 188 to start, I&#39;d think you could get a tad more..

- exhaust header etc
- chipped ECU
- revised pre MAF intake
- blueprint

all legal I think.......

67474


May I ask how you would know that tidbit??
(The 209hp number, that is...)

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

Geo
01-26-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by ChrisCamadella@Jan 23 2006, 08:51 AM
May I ask how you would know that tidbit??
(The 209hp number, that is...)

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

71692


Chris, I got that number directly from Jon in a discussion about the 944 and all it&#39;s NA variants. If this number is inaccurate I&#39;m all ears.

wpspeedracer
01-26-2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by ChrisCamadella@Jan 23 2006, 03:51 PM
May I ask how you would know that tidbit??
(The 209hp number, that is...)

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

71692



so is this RWHP number ?- I&#39;m not anywhere near that for RWHP on Irish Mike&#39;s dyno and his is pretty liberal......

Mark
#54

Geo
01-27-2006, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by wpspeedracer@Jan 26 2006, 10:26 AM
so is this RWHP number ?- I&#39;m not anywhere near that for RWHP on Irish Mike&#39;s dyno and his is pretty liberal......

Mark
#54

72320


That&#39;s crank on an engine brake dyno.

wpspeedracer
01-27-2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Geo@Jan 27 2006, 05:12 AM
That&#39;s crank on an engine brake dyno.

72451


what % are u figuring from the RWHP figure? I&#39;m at 178 w/air box on, 187 no air box.
Mark
#54

lateapex911
01-27-2006, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by wpspeedracer@Jan 27 2006, 06:54 AM
what % are u figuring from the RWHP figure? I&#39;m at 178 w/air box on, 187 no air box.
Mark
#54

72456


Both are very stout numbers. The non air box number especially. Generally, 18% is the accepted figure for driveline loss.

No calculator here, but thats about 37 HP, so both numbers are ahead of the curve, unless I am missing something.

Geo
01-29-2006, 02:50 PM
what % are u figuring from the RWHP figure? I&#39;m at 178 w/air box on, 187 no air box.
Mark
#54
[/b]

Are you really trying to tell me you&#39;re getting 9 hp by eliminating the airbox? I&#39;m having a very hard time believing that is real.

wpspeedracer
01-29-2006, 11:50 PM
"Are you really trying to tell me you&#39;re getting 9 hp by eliminating the airbox? I&#39;m having a very hard time believing that is real."

nothing to gain here - that&#39;s what the read-out says. Remember too that dyno&#39;s are done with no help of 100 mph + of intake air being ramed into the intake like on the track. Mile ran it with and without the air box just to get a comparison.....Also, all dyno&#39;s are relative - we were just trying different combinations of stuff - headers, mufflers, resonators, looking for anything to give us that extra hp / torque. On another dyno I could only show 150 RWHP. I was able to tune my exhaust this time for a little more torque.

Mark