300ZX In ITR

[benspeed]

OK - I was surfing for some info on the Porsches in ITR and those are going to be very expensive. Looking at another car I love, the 300ZX and am wondering if anybody knows if this car is being raced in any class and if there is a shop in the NE who can give me some input on the car.

Looks like it might be overweight, but if the brakes are great and if IT trim can put it around 250 HP I might give it a shot.

Got any help for me? A nice running car can be found for $4-5K.

Cheers,

[Joe Harlan]

OK - I was surfing for some info on the Porsches in ITR and those are going to be very expensive. Looking at another car I love, the 300ZX and am wondering if anybody knows if this car is being raced in any class and if there is a shop in the NE who can give me some input on the car.

Looks like it might be overweight, but if the brakes are great and if IT trim can put it around 250 HP I might give it a shot.

Got any help for me? A nice running car can be found for $4-5K.

Cheers,
[/b]

Long and short of it....NO

The brakes would be fine for racing a 2500 lb car with that HP, The T2 350 at 3300lbs and 287hp had twice the brakes in the brembo package and is just decent W/ABS. I am willing to say these cars will hardly be faster than most really good ITS cars and not up to speed for the class they are put in.

That's just an honest take on it and I love these cars. They were and will be the best bang for the buck on a quick fun weekend car to drive.

[benspeed]

DANG! Great car too. I've only seen only one raced - it was a white turbo in GT2 and it ran well at LRP but was probably 2300 pounds.

Edit - turbo chassis - NA motor

[JeffYoung]

I think with proper ducting, and perhaps a less agressive pad, the brakes on this car (given their size) should work for a 30 minute sprint race. You may not be able to use them as hard as the BMW guys though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I know 2 things: Joe knows Nissans and weight sucks in a racecar.

BUT: This car will be POWERFUL. VERY powerful. This class is a study in physics. Lightweight/low powered cars, medium weight and decent powered cars, and heavy weights with big power. I think there are great choices and there will be precious few tracks that have the diversity to allow every car to shine. Pick a car for your local tracks!

Having said that, this car has 280mm brakes Front and 297mm rears. They are decent size but certainly smallish for a car in excess of 3200lbs. Proper ducting will certainly be needed.

What is the history of this car in SSA? A quick Google search showed the car was podium material in 1996...

[hunter164]

Im already car committed. I dont mind being the guinea pig. It'd be alot more fun if there were a few more around next season thouhg. We'll see how it does...

[JeffYoung]

A lot more than rotor size matters as well, as I am finding out.

Vented? I think the fronts are, are the rears?

Wheels size and opening? A lot of cooling happens, or can happen, this way as well?

And, again as I am learning, pad choice? It is possible to run a less agressive pad that generates less heat. You won't get as much stopping power but you can make the brakes last.

The car is heavy, I agree with that, and it will take work to make the brakes work. But, I'm leaning towards one of these cars as well, so I may be a guinea pig too.

Greg, where are you located?

[hunter164]

I'm up in the North East. We garage up on the MA/NH line. I'm learning on my own at this point as the rest of the team is running 240sx's. I've had the car for a year now. Did a school in it, and a couple track days. Next year I'm going to try to run a full NHIS season, mostly due to budgetary constraints, and expand from there. The car is definitely alot of fun to drive. Hopefully this winter we can make some big strides in set up and the "minor" details.

[JeffYoung]

I am still trying to decide between the 300ZX (fairly cheap and plentiful), the 944S2 (not cheap, not plentiful) and the Supra (which I think will be class king but is REALLY not cheap and REALLY not plentiful). Necessity will probably push me towards the 300ZX although I have always really liked the cars.

I'll let you know if I go the 300ZX route and if so, stay in touch. We can share info, mistakes, bloops and blunders.

[hunter164]

Definitely let me know if you follow me down the 330zx path. Most valuable lesson learned to date: make sure you have the lower tranny mounting gussets on the car or you WILL crack the bell housing. not necessary on some cars, VERY necessary on this one.

[DavidM]

Brakes will be an issue. I tracked my 95 twin turbo a couple times and man does it take a while to get slowed down (compared to my 240). The car is heavy and the brakes are too small IMO for the weight. Your best bet would be to find a slicktop car, but those are extremely rare. Many people have tried to get the weight of the T-top cars down, but a lot of it is in the frame and can't be removed. There was a story on one of the Z forums where a guy hit a guard rail head on at 65 and he walked away. Strong cars, but heavy. I'd love to race one, but I think the weight is going to be too much of a handycap.

David

[JeffYoung]

David, when you tracked your car, was the issue:

1. It just didn't stop like a lighter car OR

2. The brake system could not dissipate the heat adequately resulting boiled fluid, melted caliper seals, etc.?

No. 1 is something you can deal with on track. Just a racing disadvantage for the car. No. 2 is a fundamental design flaw that PREVENTS you from racing/finishing races (ask me how I know).

If it is 2, I agree, the car should be avoided. If it is 1, I can live with that.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, better get on the stick...I just picked up a nice LSD trans for my S2....;) Cheap parts are out there, just gotta dig a bit!

[Joe Harlan]

Well thanks Andy, The fact is that I have raced on these brakes at 2700lbs and they will not last long.
plenty of pad just no rotor. making weight won't be an issue cause this thing has 75 pounds of rotors on it.


This car will end up a tweener and thats about it. I asked for the car in ITS with a restrictor at about this weight and it would have been a bitchen ride because it could be competitive.

96 was a long time ago and I would be curious what was on the stage with it at the time.

Anyway whats done is done and I would be happy to help info wise or parts wise any one that wants to try one of these but with the understanding it will be a mid packer most places.

PS: Less agressive pads would not be the proper answer to any car with poor brakes. More agressive and more service is the only right way to do it.

Thats like because a car is loose you mess up the front end to give it balance yet end up slower overall.

[JeffYoung]

Surprising to me. I still think the car is on paper one of the three or four to beat. Good aero (the cars had 150 mph top end stock!), good power, good handling. One weakness, apparently, and that is brakes. Joe, when you say not enough rotor, you mean not enough rotor to keep it cool?

We'll see because it is certain that some of these will get built to the max.

Joe on the pads issue, doesn't it depend what the weakness in the braking system is? I agree that if your issue is just lack of performance, then you want as agressive a pad as you can get, and then service the pads, rotors, hubs, etc. regularly. Is this the Z's problem?

There is a second braking problem though, one that I am intimately familiar with, and that is complete inability to keep the brake assembly cool. In taht situation, using a less aggressive pad can help because you trade stopping ability for less heat generation. Does that make sense?

[Joe Harlan]

Surprising to me. I still think the car is on paper one of the three or four to beat. Good aero (the cars had 150 mph top end stock!), good power, good handling. One weakness, apparently, and that is brakes. Joe, when you say not enough rotor, you mean not enough rotor to keep it cool?

We'll see because it is certain that some of these will get built to the max.

Joe on the pads issue, doesn't it depend what the weakness in the braking system is? I agree that if your issue is just lack of performance, then you want as agressive a pad as you can get, and then service the pads, rotors, hubs, etc. regularly. Is this the Z's problem?

There is a second braking problem though, one that I am intimately familiar with, and that is complete inability to keep the brake assembly cool. In taht situation, using a less aggressive pad can help because you trade stopping ability for less heat generation. Does that make sense?
[/b]

Sorry Jeff, I understand what you are saying but I disagree. I never give up any level of performance that I can get. I do adjust my driving style to fit the issues of a given car. The end result is that the 300 could be a good car but not in ITR. I think when the top level Porkeys or Bimmers show up the 300 is an also run once again. Had the CRB put a restrictor on them and put them in ITS where they should be then I think I could have sold as many as I could build in a year.

I have driven many of these cars and race a 260HP 2700lb 240sx with these brakes and I am pretty clear on this deal. I have many hours of testing the T2 350Z at 3368 with the full Brembo package and these cars turn laps about where I would expect a good ITR car to run. Simply put at that weight the 300 is out of usable brakes and the Bimmer and the Porkies still have'em.

Good luck with this stuff and feel free to email I am finishing my new shop so I can get back to building cars but I will check in if need be.

[benspeed]

Who needs brakes - I AM BANZAI BEN!

What's the chance that weight comes off when a bunch of these car show up and get whipped?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Who needs brakes - I AM BANZAI BEN!

What's the chance that weight comes off when a bunch of these car show up and get whipped? [/b]

NONE. The only PCA that would happen would be if one of these cars (in ITR) proved to put out significantly higher or lower power that the 'process' predicted for it. If a significant amount of evidence was provided to the CRB that was easily validated, consideration for a weight change could happen. It would be an 'error' on the ITAC's part that would be corrected in the interest of class equity. On-track performance would be considered for trending and data support but in no way would be used as the primary reason for a PCA. This is IT...we will not try and balance each car on the head of a pin. We want to correct large errors in the name of fairness but what we have is an educated guessing game...and it won't get much better than that in IT.

The fact nobody can pick a clear car to have is proof to me that, on paper, these cars can race well together.

[lateapex911]

I doubt it's too good, unless there can be a case made that the car can't make it's process assumptions.

But the IT category doesn't try to balance every car on the head of a pin. Some cars will shine at some tracks, others not, due to the individual makeup of the car. vis a vis the competition.

Some tracks require little braking...others have lots of heavy braking.

Remember, NO car in any IT class is the perfect racecar...we're talking modified street cars, and we race them warts and all.

Maybe it would have made it easier for everyone if we had just made one or two cars obviously much better than the rest?!?!

[itracer]

...we will not try and balance each car on the head of a pin....
[/b]



... But the IT category doesn't try to balance every car on the head of a pin. ...
[/b]

OMG they are starting to merge into one being :wacko: !

Keep up the good work.

[lateapex911]

OMG they are starting to merge into one being :wacko: !

Keep up the good work.
[/b]

I laughed when I read your post and thought, "Where'd he dig up that old quote from Andy??"...then I saw the post time! Duh...EXACTLY the same!

I guess you can say that at least two ITAC guys share the same view, LOL.

(But in actuality, the commitee as a whole does too.)

[DavidM]

David, when you tracked your car, was the issue:

1. It just didn't stop like a lighter car OR

2. The brake system could not dissipate the heat adequately resulting boiled fluid, melted caliper seals, etc.?

No. 1 is something you can deal with on track. Just a racing disadvantage for the car. No. 2 is a fundamental design flaw that PREVENTS you from racing/finishing races (ask me how I know).

If it is 2, I agree, the car should be avoided. If it is 1, I can live with that.
[/b]

It takes a long time to stop compared to a lighter car, but seems like it should be able to stop quicker. The Z is pretty much my fun/weekend car and I still have to adjust my braking distance whenever I drive it. I have stock brakes with semi-metallic pads and stainless brake lines so it's not a full race setup. I've never really liked the pedal feel, but that may just be me.

I was pretty much a track newb when I had it on the track though I had autocrossed for a couple years. I definitely wasn't hammering the brakes and I never felt any fade (though I did start to overheat, but that's another issue). I have talked to other people that have experienced significant fade on the track. This was a long time ago and I don't recall the exact situation or track. The stock front undertray has some brake channeling ducts built into it, but some good ducting may alleviate the fading issues. I think it'd still take you a long time to slow down compared to other cars. Better have a big lead before you get to the brake zone.

I'm kind of wondering if the car is going to be able to get down to weight. Was it 3250? and that's with driver. So you figure the car needs to be 3050-3100 without driver. The car is somewhere between 3400 and 3500 stock (slicktop is about 100 lbs less). That's 400 lbs to lose. You'll get 60-70lbs in seats and maybe 50-75 lbs in plastic trim, sound deadening, and carpet. I don't know where you're going to find another 250+ lbs. What do you do with T-tops? Those are pretty heavy. The spare tire is a miniature, but that's some weight. I think it'll be tough.

I hope somebody proves us wrong as this is one of my favorite cars (which is why I own one).

David

[Ron Earp]

I'm kind of wondering if the car is going to be able to get down to weight. Was it 3250? and that's with driver. So you figure the car needs to be 3050-3100 without driver. The car is somewhere between 3400 and 3500 stock (slicktop is about 100 lbs less). That's 400 lbs to lose. You'll get 60-70lbs in seats and maybe 50-75 lbs in plastic trim, sound deadening, and carpet. I don't know where you're going to find another 250+ lbs. What do you do with T-tops? Those are pretty heavy. The spare tire is a miniature, but that's some weight. I think it'll be tough.
[/b]

It won't be as tough as you think I bet:

Electric windows
Electric mirrors
Full power seats - probably heavier than you estimate
Full interior
Door panels
All carpet and sound deadening
All AC - compressor, evap, condensor, drier, hoses
HVAC controls
Radio - lots of speakers, and wire
T-tops - replace with 0.040" steel panel welded in place
Radiator with ally unit
Full exhaust replaced with a much lighter unit
Cat removed
Cruise control
EGR systems and plumbing
Spare chucked
Jack chucked
Light weight wheels used

And I bet a lot more.

That car is going to be a fast car when fully developed and I bet it'll be competitive. Maybe we'll have to do the swept area per ton on brakes again to show that it is probably not much worse off than other ITR cars, and might be better than a few. I wouldn't let everyone get you down on it, you can bet they will be built and once some top builds come out to play they'll be contenders.

Ron

[Joe Harlan]

When I proposed this car for ITS with a restrictor I proposed 3250 figuring ITS times and speeds. The factory curb weight is 3299 so I suspect making weight will not be an issue. I worked on one of these for a drift kid with nothing in it but a cage and 19inch wheels it was 2948 on my scales.

I think it will be an OK car but it will not be a top level deal amoung the other cars listed at a full prep and drive level. I am also saying this as a guy that has actually driven many of these and several time on track days. Good luck use Hawk pads HB178s fronts and HB 179S rears. I stock them and line kits also if you can't find them easy.


Joe

[Ron Earp]

When I proposed this car for ITS with a restrictor I proposed 3250 figuring ITS times and speeds.

I think it will be an OK car but it will not be a top level deal amoung the other cars listed at a full prep and drive level.
[/b]

In ITR the same Z is classed at 3250 lbs.

Basically you are saying that a couple seconds per lap faster, at the same weight, will turn this car from a good one (Z in ITS with restrictor) to a medicore or bad one (Z in ITR without restrictor)?

Regardless, it is pretty clear the use of restrictors in IT didn't work too well and folks overwhelmingly wished to have a new class without restrictors. Forcing all newly classed cars into S with restrictors seemed like a bad idea.

Ron

[Joe Harlan]

Well again I see why I quit posting here. WIth your vast experience with these cars Ron I am sure you are right. Anyone that decided to actually build one is welcome to contact me offline. Expressing a view here based on actual experience is like pissing in the wind and I just don't have time for it.

The issue Ron is that a restricted engine in ITS would have kept the speeds and costs of running these car real.

Decent chassis: 4500
Pro Engine 9000
Fresh trans 1000
Brakes 1000
Diff 1400
cage 2500
Cell 1000
Safety 1000
Shocks 5000 for a mid rage set
Wheels 2500

So with some misc stuff added 30K before paint and graphics. You aren't going to see 50 cars built in a 2 year period unless the car is proven to be extremely competive out of the box. These cars never had 240z following when they were new and Nissan couldn't sell this great little sports car in any serious numbers for 26k new.

As they say Enjoy the ride.

[Ron Earp]

Is the issue here performance of the Z or how IT should be? Fact is, folks don't care for restrictor plates in IT. It is one of the many reasons ITR exists, and only one of many reasons I think ITR will be a popular class.

I'm sure you've forgotten more about Zs than I'll ever know. But I don't see a restricted Z being any cheaper than a unrestricted Z to build really. All those costs you listed are pretty much fixed, plate or no plate. Are there 50 of anything in IT anywhere, besides Miatas, RX7s, and old Z cars? How much faster do you think an unrestricted Z is going to be?

[DavidM]

The factory curb weight is 3299 so I suspect making weight will not be an issue. I worked on one of these for a drift kid with nothing in it but a cage and 19inch wheels it was 2948 on my scales.
[/b]

I've seen the 3299 number, but most Z people seem to consider it a myth. I've never had mine on a scale so that might be interesting. I've got a body kit and 18" wheels so I'd have to subtract some weight for those. 2948 is impressive and definitely shows the car can make weight anyways. That was a T-top car? Weight was without the T-tops?

David

[Joe Harlan]

Ron, The kitchen table rule applies with a restrictor and since we both know you have even less experience wit restrictors than I do, I will respond one last time. The kitchen table rule is engines and gears boxes can be built by the average party on the kitchen table rather than needing a Professional like myself. SO we cut the price of a 9k engine down to 3500 bucks and the cost of a trans in half. The Idea is if the restrictor will hold the power well below the expected max effort then the Max effort is not needed for a reasonble program to exist. Most people stay on the fench because they don't believe they have the skills to put together a Max effort anything. IT used to be the best place for those kind of people until all of us Pros started building parts and raising the bar. SM is a perfect example of Pros gone wild. If you properly use restrictors you could balance the class and drive most of the pros out of the game.

The car that was used for that project had a sunroof if I remember correctly.

[JoshS]

The Idea is if the restrictor will hold the power well below the expected max effort then the Max effort is not needed for a reasonble program to exist. [/b]
Joe, this confuses me. Are you saying that a pro-built motor won't make any more power than a kitchen table motor if they have the same restrictor?

That doesn't make sense. We can consider the stock intake as a restrictor (just not as restrictive as something that we might add later.) And with that stock restrictor, pro-built engines are better than kitchen-table engines, right? Why would the addition of a restrictor change that?

[Joe Harlan]

Lets say the target for the car in IT trim is 225 Hp...This would be a number that anyone could get to pro or Kitchen table... But If I the pro rub on it really hard I may get 230...Now everyone needs 230 just to keep up.. If you add a engineered restrictor to 225 it really does not matter if I find 245 unrestricted if with said restictor we are all stuck at or very near the original 225 target. The issue some have in this club is that unless you spend the crap out of your kids college fund you have not fully developed a "race car" Unfortunately that is why we are loosing this sport.

[zchris]

Joe is correct. In IT where you have a compression and cam spec, the SIR is a great equalizer tool. I wish in GT we had a maximum spec for compression. We now have to build 15 to 1 motors in limited prep to maximze the SIR. Exactly what is was supposed to eliminate. Turning the term Limited Prep into somewhat of a myth. Joes also correct about the lack of brakes on the 300zx. Seen several hit the turn 3 wall at NHIS because the brakes went away. Not even the Nissan Comp big brake kit solved the problem. Just to damn heavy. Chris Howard

[JoshS]

Sorry Joe, I'm still a little lost. How do you have a restrictor engineered to 225hp? That same restrictor in a pro-built motor might still get 235 when a kitchen-table motor with that same restrictor would get 225, no?

Are you saying that if there's a restrictor, that no amount of pro engineering can turn out more hp?

[Ron Earp]

Are you saying that if there's a restrictor, that no amount of pro engineering can turn out more hp?
[/b]

Certainly there will be some gains.

I think the opposite of what some predict will happen - put a restrictor on it and people will spend insane amounts of money to get those last 2 ft lbs, or maximize that area under the curve with the restrictor. About what we do now. Certainly more work and development with the restrictor will net some gains, they'll just be smaller and cost a lot of time/money and or both.

Fortunately, it is moot. I think we've all seen how well the restrictors worked with the BMWs and I doubt many want a repeat of that experiment.

Ron

[Joe Harlan]

Sorry Joe, I'm still a little lost. How do you have a restrictor engineered to 225hp? That same restrictor in a pro-built motor might still get 235 when a kitchen-table motor with that same restrictor would get 225, no?

Are you saying that if there's a restrictor, that no amount of pro engineering can turn out more hp?
[/b]


Josh, Lets put it this way. If said restrictor can only move X amount of air and compression and cams are a fixed number then gains will be minimal at best and lets say we are talking 3 to 4 HP difference. I can tell you for a fact that the difference between a tabletop and a pro motor is way different than that now. YOu have a turbo car so you understand the effects of air. If you had a restrictor on the intake side of your turbo with say a 27mm hole you could only ever make as much boost as 27mm would flow. At a certain point 27mm stalls and can not allow any further air volume to flow.

Ron you only think it's a dead deal...Look at the number of classes using them and starting to use them there is no doubt in my mind that they will be in use everywhere in the next 5 years. I personally think they would be awsome in Spec Miata....That would get rid of all the advantages of a pro motor.

Thanks Chris and I competely agree that a max compression should be looked at for GT to limit how far people will go to try to cheat the effects of the SIR, Or have the sir engineered and sized based on compression number.

[Stan]

Josh, Lets put it this way. If said restrictor can only move X amount of air and compression and cams are a fixed number then gains will be minimal at best and lets say we are talking 3 to 4 HP difference. I can tell you for a fact that the difference between a tabletop and a pro motor is way different than that now.[/b]
True. We are seeing 15+ hp difference in the 1.6L Miata between crate and carefully prepared legal pro motors. A 3.0L 300ZX motor will show linear improvement from that.


At a certain point 27mm stalls and can not allow any further air volume to flow.[/b]
True again, but air flow alone is not the whole story. An engine will make power with a given SIR in linear relation to its specific output. That's a fancy way of saying that Josh is correct in post #33, and a pro built engine will enjoy a power advantage over the kitchen table engine, assuming they use the same size SIR. Raetech and Loyning Engine Service have shown the Club over and over again that the SIR must be matched to the engine preparation level to assure the desired output. One size does NOT fit all.


Ron you only think it's a dead deal...Look at the number of classes using them and starting to use them there is no doubt in my mind that they will be in use everywhere in the next 5 years. I personally think they would be awsome in Spec Miata....That would get rid of all the advantages of a pro motor.[/b]
It is true that we will see intake restrictors more comprehensively employed in future. Not all will be SIRs, but restrictors are the coming thing. See my comments above about the advantages of pro motors...


Thanks Chris and I competely agree that a max compression should be looked at for GT to limit how far people will go to try to cheat the effects of the SIR, Or have the sir engineered and sized based on compression number.[/b]
Both approaches are under discussion.

Stan

[Ron Earp]

Ron you only think it's a dead deal...Look at the number of classes using them and starting to use them there is no doubt in my mind that they will be in use everywhere in the next 5 years. I personally think they would be awsome in Spec Miata....That would get rid of all the advantages of a pro motor.
[/b]

I hope it is a dead deal. You and I will be around in five years, we can see where it stands then.

Fortunately at least in this latest round of IT development, they did not "win". If they had, we would've seen all these nice cars we just classed in ITR dumbed down in performance and stuffed into S.

Where is the fun in that for the racer? Why would a racer wish to build a late-model restricted Supra so he could run in ITS with S cars? Why not build the cheaper S car then? And there we are, with IT stuck in the past with no new cars. IT needs new cars, and new faces driving them, and getting new cars into the class can make that happen.

Restrictors might be great for a spec class where everybody runs the same engine and chassis. But IT isn't like that, IT is full of differences. And differences is what makes IT interesting for a great many folks.

Ron

[Joe Harlan]

True. We are seeing 15+ hp difference in the 1.6L Miata between crate and carefully prepared legal pro motors. A 3.0L 300ZX motor will show linear improvement from that.
True again, but air flow alone is not the whole story. An engine will make power with a given SIR in linear relation to its specific output. That's a fancy way of saying that Josh is correct in post #33, and a pro built engine will enjoy a power advantage over the kitchen table engine, assuming they use the same size SIR. Raetech and Loyning Engine Service have shown the Club over and over again that the SIR must be matched to the engine preparation level to assure the desired output. One size does NOT fit all.
It is true that we will see intake restrictors more comprehensively employed in future. Not all will be SIRs, but restrictors are the coming thing. See my comments above about the advantages of pro motors...
Both approaches are under discussion.

Stan
[/b]

Stan, I agree in GT type prep the gains between pro and kitchen are still to far apart but I believe we have far less issues in IT to deal with.

Ron as a club we need to find ways of having more car and less classes so we can look at a future of allowing your wombat 3000 nto be fit into a regional or national (or both) program at different levels of prep. My vision would a set of classes that would have a plce for my 350z to run the ARRC and the runoffs in the same year... We need to get back to competition instead of trophy collecting. I will look at every tool in the box with an open mind but more classes needs to be the least used tool. If folks want to solo1 then thats what they should build cars for.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, have to disagree )imagine that). ITR is not a new class, it is a new classification within an existing ruleset (IT) to account for newer, faster cars. Itś not an entirely new category, a la GT, Prod, T, etc.

Lots of folks dont want to hear this, and I know there is no intent to do away with ITC and ITB, but the fact remains that there siply arent many, if any, new cars that can be classed in C and B given the performance potential of cars today. ITR is simply a recognition of this fact, and a shifting of existing the existing IT classification "up" performance wise to account for that.

Everyone I have talked to, here on line, in teh paddock, etc. thinks this is a good, if not great, idea. Still struggling with why you dont (and not tying to be rude).

[Joe Harlan]

Jeff, No where have you seen me say that ITR is not a good idea. I just feel that you all missed the boat and cut the pie to thin. There is clearly a need but the BOD needs to have a full club wide plan of attack rather than just a little piece of the pie. I offered a true based on experience thought On what I thought of this car and lets see Post number how many I had to take shit for offering facts....Facts! not "well it looks good on paper". I have driven these cars in about every config you can think of and it is a bitchen car but it won't hunt a M3 and now that the pie is cut so close where you gonna put the 350z at 300 flywheel HP in 2 years?....

[JeffYoung]

with the 350z, you arent going to class in ITR in 2 years. The pie as you say for ITR is less fly hp than that and we have a very good group of cars as is.

I think this discussion is a good example of you cant please everyone all the time, and I mean that in a good way because the minority usually has, as you do, valid thoughts.

On the 300zx, just a note of clarification, it will not have to run with M3s, but I agree the 2.8 and 3.0 Bimmers will be tough.

That said, how about a wager instead of internet beeyatchin )by both of us)? Iĺl bet you 100 dollars that a Z32 is on the podium at the ARRC in ITR in one of the first three years of teh class existence. Deal?

[Joe Harlan]

with the 350z, you arent going to class in ITR in 2 years. The pie as you say for ITR is less fly hp than that and we have a very good group of cars as is.

I think this discussion is a good example of you cant please everyone all the time, and I mean that in a good way because the minority usually has, as you do, valid thoughts.

On the 300zx, just a note of clarification, it will not have to run with M3s, but I agree the 2.8 and 3.0 Bimmers will be tough.

That said, how about a wager instead of internet beeyatchin )by both of us)? Iĺl bet you 100 dollars that a Z32 is on the podium at the ARRC in ITR in one of the first three years of teh class existence. Deal?
[/b]
i'll take the bet if it is you or Ron building and driving it...... B)

Sorry actual people that want real info...I am going back to ignore...my e-mail is listed if you want to reach me but these guys tire me out.

[DavidM]

The car that was used for that project had a sunroof if I remember correctly.
[/b]

Sounds like a slicktop, though I didn't think they had sunroofs (I've never actually seen one). A slicktop car is definitely the way to go if you can find one.

David

[x-ring]

I had a '93 NA slicktop. No sunroof (AFAIK, Nissan never offered a sunroof in a Z32), no T-tops. I don't think they ever offered a TT slicktop.

Anyway, I sold it to buy a '92 TT, sold the TT to build the race car.

Now I have an urge to sell the race car to buy a slicktop and build another race car...

Have I come full circle?

[Greg Amy]

A slicktop car is definitely the way to go if you can find one.[/b]

Find old SSA results from the early-to-mid 90's, locate the drivers/owners, and trace the cars down. There were plenty of them, as they were EXTREMELY competitive SSA cars (*the* car to have ~'92-96, IIRC).

[JeffYoung]

But Greg, how can that be? Their four wheel foot on the floor a la Fred Flinstone brakes just wouldn't cut it!

[BMW RACER]

Jeff.

Back then all SS cars had to run stock brakes! They ALL sucked, just the Nissan sucked less!

I used to race SS That's why I love IT!

[Ron Earp]

I'm sure they not great, as in class beating great. But lots of IT cars are "not so good" in braking, but they race okay and simply demand more of the driver in brake management and planning. There are cars that have "worse" brakes than the Z in ITR, and worse when comparing swept area per ton in ITS and ITA.

I find it hard to believe the Z in ITR would be worse than a TR8, and the TR8 is definitely racable and when running well competitive. It takes a lot of maintenence on the brakes, and it does require the driver to manage his brakes - maybe this is a lost skill for some drivers? I'm sure it isn't a lost skill for the competitive IT drivers out there now, many of them are doing the job just fine.

Ron

[DavidM]

I think a good driver will be able to drive the Z32 fast. I think the same driver in some of the other cars would be faster, though. There's such a big disparity in driver skills in IT it's hard to tell whether it's the car or the driver. My car has done low 1:43s at road Atlanta with Bob driving. My best to date is a low 1:54. A well prepped Z32 with a good driver will probably beat a lot of the cars in ITR. I still think the brakes are a handicap.

After all, isn't that what the magical IT weight formula dictates? The goal of the formula is to get equal horsepower to weight ratios for all the cars with some "adders" being allowed based on specific design characteristics. So unless the Z32 got the crappy brake adder it'll be able to make the same horsepower to weight as other ITR cars. Its brakes aren't as good as other cars in the class so it would stand to reason that it'll have slower lap times than those cars.

Only time will tell. We're all just bench racing at this point.

David

[dj10]

Jeff.

Back then all SS cars had to run stock brakes! They ALL sucked, just the Nissan sucked less!

I used to race SS That's why I love IT! [/b]



I wouldn't count the Z brakes out completely. With the newer compound pads being developed, they may help the braking a hell of a lot. IMO

[chiuman]

I've also been considering building a Z32 for ITR. Maybe I should concentrate on getting my license first, but that will come soon enough :rolleyes:

I've tracked a turbo Z at the Glen for many years and until I upgraded the brakes I couldn't stay out for 20-30 minutes without terrible brake fade. I've tried Hawk Blues, PFC 97's etc... IMO the PFC's performed the best but still faded. I suppose with proper ducting and 200-300 lbs. less weight the brakes would be adequate for a sprint race.

As far as weight the last iteration of Z I built was a slicktop chassis with a twin turbo engine, it weighed 3100 lbs. w/o driver. The complete A/C system was removed, but it had full interior with Autopower rollbar, Sparco race seats, big brakes on 4-corners and heavy 18" wheels. I suspect even a t-top Z can get to 3250 once stripped.

Also the chassis is strong. After bouncing off the armco three times at the top of esses at the Glen I was able to get out and walk to the nearest flag station to wait for the ambulance.

I've probably got enough parts to put a car together, just need a good body now. If I can't find something resonable I've got an na engine, and tranny if anyone is interested :D

-Chris

[ITZ34]

Chris:

I think i see a project developing :rolleyes:

DC