June fastrack is up

[dickita15]

http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/09/06/09-fastrack-june.pdf

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
The CRB welcomes comments from the IT community about whether to allow AWD cars in the IT classes.

[Ed Funk]

NO!!

Just more BS for the ITAC to think about. How can they be classed fairly? Or will we have more classes (just what we need!---more effin' classes!, ITB 4x4 anyone?)

Just so there's no confusion, I'm against it!

[joeg]

Probably not going to be much choice down the road, given the Subaru's and Evo's Touring inclusion.

They do not dominate there, so some kind of equivalency is possible...

Not enthused about this, but I can see it coming.

[Ron Earp]

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
The CRB welcomes comments from the IT community about whether to allow AWD cars in the IT classes.


Sooner or later IT will have to include forced induction and AWD. The percentage of these cars in the enthusiast market has continued to grow over the years. With new fuel economy mandates coming down the pipe you can bet that manufactures will turn to small displacement supercharged and turbocharged engines. We can't race 35 year old cars for the next 30 years can we? Or maybe we can, we are the SCCA.

In any event, I hope I live to see the SCCA adopt newer (not really newer, but new to the SCCA) technology in the IT classes.

[JeffYoung]

I am (personally) in favor of allowing AWD cars, but not turbo cars in IT. The recurring issue with AWD cars is their "dominance" in the wet. My view is this is just another positive/negative attribute for a particular model. All IT cars have pluses and minuses, the very few AWD N/A cars that will be eligible will be the same.

Interested in thoughts from membership.

[gran racing]

forced induction and AWD.

But there's a difference between these two. I'd sure want it to get approved if I lived in Seattle.

[Andy Bettencourt]

With the open ECU and exhuast rules, turbo cars become monsters. Welcome to the world of SIR's.

[RacerBill]

I have to go along with Ron. I believe that at some time, we will have to consider AWD and forced induction. Both have pros and cons. I believe that forced induction is allowed in other SCCA classes, so how is that managed today?

[Ron Earp]

All IT cars have pluses and minuses, the very few AWD N/A cars that will be eligible will be the same.

Interested in thoughts from membership.

There are relatively few AWD/non-turbo cars. Therefore I think the impact on IT would be minimal at best. But it'd be a good place to start and try the cars out.

As I recall someone recently asked the ITAC to class a NA AWD car. I think the response was "No."

[Ron Earp]

With the open ECU and exhuast rules, turbo cars become monsters. Welcome to the world of SIR's.

Welcome. If the turbo AWD need SIRs then so be it. Since these cars are fitting into an existing framework of cars they can be used to try out SIRs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I don't think turbo cars would fit into existing framework. Remember, it ain't stock hp that is the number that is multiplied by the target pw/weight of each class, it's the estimated power in IT trim. With the legal IT mods, these numbers skyrocket - leading to weights that are redonkulously heavy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have to go along with Ron. I believe that at some time, we will have to consider AWD and forced induction. Both have pros and cons. I believe that forced induction is allowed in other SCCA classes, so how is that managed today?

No open ECU's and stock exhausts.

Take a look at ANY series that allows them. They win right away and have to be brought back via comp adjustment. We don't do that. The STi's won T2 in there first year at the Runoffs...in the dry. Add the wet and it (as someone who drove one once said) 'was so easy, it was like I was cheating'.

[jhooten]

Finally I have another option besides GT2. The Supra goes to EP!

I doubt I will have it ready for this weekend though.

[dj10]

donn't allow awd when track is wet or raining. :~)

[jjjanos]

But I don't think turbo cars would fit into existing framework. Remember, it ain't stock hp that is the number that is multiplied by the target pw/weight of each class, it's the estimated power in IT trim. With the legal IT mods, these numbers skyrocket - leading to weights that are redonkulously heavy.

Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.

[lawtonglenn]

.



I think the main problem will be that the GCR 9.1.3.D.9.L will have to be changed from:


"...All ballast shall be located in the front passenger footwell..."

to

"...All ballast shall be located wherever the hell you can fit all of it...."



:)

[shwah]

The comment that they are researching the belt life issue made on page 9 caught my eye.

[Chip42]

Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.

awesome line, that.

I have no issue with AWD - assuming all NA - loose the toyota wagons, a few civic wagons, and other cars exluded from IT by virtue of a 5th door (how about fixing THAT??) and all you have left are base subies and what, AMC eagles? run the process, let them race.

forced induction requires a much larger discussion and review and has nothing to do with AWD other than the combo being common offerings today.

[BruceG]

How about a "SHOWROOMSTUCK" class for AWD Hummers?...ar...ar:eclipsee_steering:

[Ron Earp]

It's really easy to point out why "we can't do xyz". It takes skill, thought, and intelligence to to figure out a solution to a problem.

Time is moving on. Cars are making more horsepower every year. Unless we want to be saddled with racing cars with an average age somewhere around 1989, IT is going to have to evolve. That evolution will, sooner or later, need to encompass forced induction cars and AWD cars. No two ways about it.

Or we can just stick our head in the sand. Been working fine for the SCCA for quite awhile, I'm sure it'll continue to work. :blink:

[lateapex911]

Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.

And that is essentially the same thing as not classing them. Why bother when nobody in his right mind would race one?

I think we need to separate the issues, and deal with each accordingly.

As it stands, when it rains, most IT owners/cars are at a loss as to what to do to optimize for the wet. Sure, we put on rain tires, but very very few of us actually change ride height, springs, damper settings and sway bar rates. Yet, to be quick in the wet, we should. And the result of that is often a complete shake up in the results. Normally dominant FWD cars are ornery beasts in the wet, and usually upper mid pack cars suddenly shine.

And nobody cries that the rules need to be changed to accommodate that. Actually, I think that's neat....that changing conditions need to be dealt with.

So, for me, class AWD just like we do cars now. If it rains, oh well, maybe they'll win. And a normally up front car comes in second or third. Boo Hoo.


Now, on turbos, I would need to see a reliable and predictable method of restriction of power to the appropriate level. That part...(the concept) is easy. The application however, is trickier. It's certainly possible, but we would have some work ahead of us if we chose to go that route.

Down the road, when the current big picture projects the ITAC is working on are done, I can see this being a good move.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's really easy to point out why "we can't do xyz". It takes skill, thought, and intelligence to to figure out a solution to a problem.

Time is moving on. Cars are making more horsepower every year. Unless we want to be saddled with racing cars with an average age somewhere around 1989, IT is going to have to evolve. That evolution will, sooner or later, need to encompass forced induction cars and AWD cars. No two ways about it.

Or we can just stick our head in the sand. Been working fine for the SCCA for quite awhile, I'm sure it'll continue to work. :blink:

Easy to armchair it Ron. Try it. You are familiar with the classification process. Only one rule though...no special rules for special cars.

Use the turbo Mazdaspeed Protege at 170hp please. A perfect example to start with.

[shwah]

awesome line, that.

I have no issue with AWD - assuming all NA - loose the toyota wagons, a few civic wagons, and other cars exluded from IT by virtue of a 5th door (how about fixing THAT??) and all you have left are base subies and what, AMC eagles? run the process, let them race.

forced induction requires a much larger discussion and review and has nothing to do with AWD other than the combo being common offerings today.

Wagons are allowed today.

The question about boost is a much bigger one (and it should be noted has not been asked by the CRB). I would want a completely separate level of allowed prep: stock ecu, and some sort of required boost limiting device, maybe even required std data logging system to verify stock boost parameters...

[lateapex911]

Wagons are allowed today.

The question about boost is a much bigger one (and it should be noted has not been asked by the CRB). I would want a completely separate level of allowed prep: stock ecu, and some sort of required boost limiting device, maybe even required std data logging system to verify stock boost parameters...

At first, many will object and point out that IT is a "one size fits all" category, and that all cars get the same rules. But that's not the actual case. Rotaries aren't given the same engine allowances that piston engines get, so, there is precedent for having unique rules for an engine type.

[tnord]

Easy to armchair it Ron. Try it. You are familiar with the classification process. Only one rule though...no special rules for special cars.

Use the turbo Mazdaspeed Protege at 170hp please. A perfect example to start with.

i don't like the idea of turbo cars, and i'm not sure why we have to include them, but i'll take a stab at the approach.

NA power is ultimately limited by three things....the volume of air you can suck into the cylinder, the amount of fuel you can spray, and how much you can compress it before ignition. while we don't process power that way currently, i think this is essentially the approach GT takes. "you can have up to x number of liters, with y diameter throttle body, and z compression ratio. have fun"

is there a similar approach using the specs from the compression side of the turbo, and assuming that thing is going to operate at max output all the time?

[Ron Earp]

Easy to armchair it Ron. Try it. You are familiar with the classification process. Only one rule though...no special rules for special cars.

Use the turbo Mazdaspeed Protege at 170hp please. A perfect example to start with.

Andy you know as well as I do that I've been intimately involved with some of the major changes in IT over the last couple of years. I'm willing to do the work as is the ITAC and other helpers.

But to decide or not to decide in a space of two hours on an internet forum that "its too hard" isn't going to cut it for the future of the club. I understand what you're saying and no, I'm not taking the bait and going to try to class a turbo car inside of five minutes here at IT.com. I don't expect you, the ITAC, or anyone else that wishes to help to do so either.

But the first step is to have folks receptive to the idea. You know, "Yes we can!" and all that jive.

Seriously, it is a big problem. No doubt. But it is a problem the SCCA, specifically IT, needs to come to terms with and start experimenting with.

No special rules? We've got special cars, maybe they need special rules. How long will we hold onto the "principles of IT" and so forth? Until the class as a whole as dropped off in attendance and tumbleweeds are in the paddock of IT? Yes, extreme and dramatic but you get the point, which is....

The philosophy of IT might have to evolve too, just a wee little bit....

Can I take my washer bottle out now? I am just kidding. :)

[jjjanos]

And that is essentially the same thing as not classing them. Why bother when nobody in his right mind would race one?

Because there is an ass for every seat? Someone might want to? The specifications are full of cars that nobody in their right mind would race. Two off the top of my head... New Beetle at 2760 and the GV at any weight.

Restrictor plates for the turbos might work instead of weight, but unless you get it correct at first blush, there's no way to correct the problem and you devolve to the same solution as specifing them as fat blobs.

[lateapex911]

Can I take my washer bottle out now? I am just kidding. :)

NO
and stop asking!

:D


Ron, you're right, I think down the road, we will cross the turbo bridge.

At this point, it is a bit premature. Actually, we HAVE discussed it proactively on ITAC con calls. (the crowd gasps!) And currently the board is cautious....but I see the day when it's part of the landscape.

I think we should probably get our current house in order, (Nearly there), then perhaps proactively do some task force research. Define goals, and allowable parameters, and see what options exist for us to attain those goals. I suspect that a "theoretical" method such as Travis described would be an option that would get a serious look. (In our case it might be turbo cars use IT rules, and their weight is the result of the some calcs, maybe the IT build gain factor is different, AND there is a secondary calc, along the lines of cars with X displacement engines are required to run a Y size SIR., which would then be on it's spec line)

[ekim952522000]

I am 100% for N/A AWD cars we already have FWD/RWD. So I don't see how this would be any different. I will try to get my letter supporting this in this week.

<---Mike would be be all over building a 2001 Subaru 2.5 RS

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2000/Subaru/1108/2000.subaru.impreza.9942-E.jpg

[Jeremy Billiel]

Easy to armchair it Ron. Try it. You are familiar with the classification process. Only one rule though...no special rules for special cars.

Use the turbo Mazdaspeed Protege at 170hp please. A perfect example to start with.

Ooh ooh oohh... my street car. Now THAT is a perfect ITS FWD that I would drive!!:D:D

[DavidM]

I got no issues with letting in AWD cars. Run them through the process just like any other car. I'd be curious how a well prepped one would do. Seems like you'd have more driveline loss and they typically push like mofos. Yeah, they'd be good in the wet, but I drive a RWD car so I'm screwed anyways. :)

I think turbos will have to be tackled at some point. It's going to take a lot of thought on how to handle them, though.

David

[Marcus Miller]

Shouldn't you build and finish a car and actually try racing before making changes to a category?
:026:

I am 100% for N/A AWD cars we already have FWD/RWD. So I don't see how this would be any different. I will try to get my letter supporting this in this week.

<---Mike would be be all over building a 2001 Subaru 2.5 RS

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2000/Subaru/1108/2000.subaru.impreza.9942-E.jpg

[Greg Amy]

I found the inclusion into ITS of the 2.0L 170-hp/145 tq, higher-compression, very-large-braked Ford Focus SVT with 6-speed Getrag interesting, especially since it was given the same weight as the Integra GS-R...should be a good runner.

Go ahead and classify non-turbo AWD cvars into IT using the current process. Same as David said: lots more driveline loss, more push, typically not drive-balanced for performance. Even at the same weight as a non-AWD cousin, it still won't be generally competitive. When it rains it'll kick, but we don't classify cars within the process for anything other than fair weather.

GA

[lateapex911]

....... but I drive a RWD car so I'm screwed anyways. :)


David

I would really differ with that...

[titanium]

I have been thinking about this very issue.
Around here, you can get a used Jaguar X-type with a 2.5 V6, manual trans and AWD pretty darn cheap.
It's the same Ford engine and platform as a Ford Contour that was just approved for ITS, but with AWD.
If it were classed in ITS, I may just have to build one for running enduros.

[JeffYoung]

I actually disagree somewhat with Ron on the turbos.

Our process right now is stock hp x. expected IT gain x. class power to weight.

The problem with turbos is predicting expected IT gain with open ECUs and exhaust. We don't currently have, at least I think, the experience on the ITAC to deal with that. it's fixable, but then, for almost all turbo cars, given what can be achieved with ECU and exhaust, we probably need one if not two classes above R, and I'm just not sure we are ready for that any time soon.

[quadzjr]

I found the inclusion into ITS of the 2.0L 170-hp/145 tq, higher-compression, very-large-braked Ford Focus SVT with 6-speed Getrag interesting, especially since it was given the same weight as the Integra GS-R...should be a good runner.


On paper it should.. however you can't get as much power as easy as you can from a GSR.

[quadzjr]

I am all for AWD cars


For turboed cars the the process is a multi edged sword.

-How do you determine athat "crazy" amount of power gained with the current ECU and exhasut rule?

-Now that you have inflated (compared to old %gains) how does that translate from one turboed car to another?

-You can classify them heavy to the point that nobody would want to run them.. because for them to get the high potential output that the classed weight is based off of they have to spend gobs of money on the dyno with a stand alone ECU.

-You can add another class? but I personally think with ITR they should be covered.

Y-ou could insert an SIR however then that means that we would be forced to make competition adjustments to get it right after a while.

I agree that we need to figure out how to incoroporate all cars, turboed, AWD, supercharged, wagons, etc.. Love for all. However, there has to be a good method to do it.

[shwah]

I think there is plenty of room for a class, or two, above ITR.

[erlrich]

In other news, did anyone else find themselves wondering why the reasoning behind "Alternatively, safety fuel cells shall be constructed in accordance with FIA FT-3 or higher specifications and tested to those requirements by an independent facility as witnessed and certified by a Professional Engineer. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Club Racing department for inclusion on a list of approved suppliers." couldn't be applied to other safety equipment regulations (either existing or in-process)?

[Greg Amy]

In other news, did anyone else find themselves wondering why the reasoning...couldn't be applied to other safety equipment regulations (either existing or in-process)?
My first, and admittedly cynical, thought was, "note the lack of required SFI rating..."

:shrug:

[DavidM]

I would really differ with that...

So you don't think FWD cars have an advantage in the wet?

[Greg Amy]

So you don't think FWD cars have an advantage in the wet?
I suspect he's alluding to his awesome ITA win in the pouring rain at NHIS a few years ago. Impressive, to say the least...

[lateapex911]

So you don't think FWD cars have an advantage in the wet?


I suspect he's alluding to his awesome ITA win in the pouring rain at NHIS a few years ago. Impressive, to say the least...

David, no, I don't..not necessarily. And Greg, (thanks) and that's but one data point among many.

To me, the bottom line is the car setup and the other variable factors. I certainly do NOT go into a wet race fearing the FWD reaper.

[gran racing]

And you wouldn't an AWD? :rolleyes: I know the difference between a FWD and RWD isn't as much as some think (damn Alpha taking my rain win away!! lol ) - it's much more about confidence. AWD is a HUGE confidence adder.

[lateapex911]

And you wouldn't an AWD? :rolleyes: I know the difference between a FWD and RWD isn't as much as some think (damn Alpha taking my rain win away!! lol ) - it's much more about confidence. AWD is a HUGE confidence adder.

Got you so mad you can't even spell!

[ed325its]

The old BMW 325xit in the garage may have another life yet.

[StephenB]

the Jag project is officially on hold!!

:026: Stephen

Before you decide the SVT is a good fit give them a few months... They already changed a bunch of ITR cars.

[Duc]

So I got moved to ITS and missed the memo :p

WOW this is quite a novel (will re-read all of it later). As far as turbo's go, it IS inevitable. Plus the turbo crowd is running being catered by NASA. The turbo cars are getting quite cheap, plus lets just throw superchargers in there as well.

Both of these devices need to be validated off of real data, no guessing. And in most cases that data is available as the most common applications are well tuned with all, or at least most (Port matching and balancing are the only two that are done one extreme builds, CAT removal is quite common), of the Improved Touring mods.

One concern is that changes to the internals of a induction device are available and hard to measure. I believe a restrictor plate would solve this, but this will again need to be done with real data.

Back to Hockey....

[Spinnetti]

http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/09/06/09-fastrack-june.pdf

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
The CRB welcomes comments from the IT community about whether to allow AWD cars in the IT classes.


Of course! SCCA can only keep their head in the sand for so long. Just no new classes please, and of course, it will probably take some fiddling as I doubt the current classing/weight methods would work as is.

[ericblois]

i do think awd and forced induction is not far away. i know ive had some good track day runs with stock powered wrx wagon that had R compunds and coil overs we were pretty even down the straights he had me by a little and though the corners i had him a little with my ITA car. i could think of at least one class for above ITR, one that might include 95-99 bmw M3's or some NA 911's from mid 90s mustang cobras 93-02 yes that 3 different body stlye mustangs

[Knestis]

I beat a Mitsu Evo (whatthehell) in the rain soaked VIR NASA enduro a couple years ago. What-evah.

I'll start the argument again that we should create ITX - above ITR, catering to AWD turbocars and whatever other gnarly stuff we want to put in there. Just to be different, make the ENTIRE CLASS breath through the same size hole. Or use a spec muffler to restrict flow on that end.

K

[lawtonglenn]

...we should create ITX - above ITR, catering to AWD turbocars and whatever other gnarly stuff we want to put in there....


isn't that exactly what ITE should be?


:shrug:

[Dave Gomberg]

...
Just to be different, make the ENTIRE CLASS breath through the same size hole. Or use a spec muffler to restrict flow on that end.
K
In the Touring classes where Turbos are allowed (T2, T3), that's almost what we do. A TIR (turbo inlet restrictor) of a given size is specified to balance their performance against the non-turbo cars. (A TIR is similar to an SIR, but it installed in the turbo intake.)

Dave

[JoshS]

isn't that exactly what ITE should be?


:shrug:

Out here in SFR, our very popular ITE class has wide-open rules. Basically, you start with a street car, and stay on DOT tires, and otherwise, ANYTHING GOES.

I think the proposal here would be to keep modifications within IT limits. I don't think most ITE rulesets have such a limitation. (Yes, it's a pet peeve of mind that ITE starts wtih "IT").

[Z3_GoCar]

Out here in SFR, our very popular ITE class has wide-open rules. Basically, you start with a street car, and stay on DOT tires, and otherwise, ANYTHING GOES.

I think the proposal here would be to keep modifications within IT limits. I don't think most ITE rulesets have such a limitation. (Yes, it's a pet peeve of mind that ITE starts wtih "IT").

Have you ever seen Joe Hall's 300zx? That's like a tub-chassis GT car on DOT tires. The unibody's been swiss cheesed and reinforced with a full tube chassis. Flat bottom aero with a huge wing out back. I think he's pulling 500hp out of the 3.0 liter turbo. I believe he was profiled in Sport car a couple of years ago or so.

[tnord]

I'll start the argument again that we should create ITX - above ITR, catering to AWD turbocars and whatever other gnarly stuff we want to put in there. Just to be different, make the ENTIRE CLASS breath through the same size hole. Or use a spec muffler to restrict flow on that end.

K

I think the acronym for the next faster IT class beyond ITR should be ITF, for ITFuckthisisgoingtobeexpensive.

[lateapex911]

57
I T $

[Knestis]

As Josh points out, ITE varies from region to region. I presume we're talking about a nationwide Regional class.

K

[jhooten]

SOWDIV limits ITE to 3.5l NA and 2.5l forced induction. As of yet no AWD have shown up to run.

[Wreckerboy]

At this point, it is a bit premature. Actually, we HAVE discussed it proactively on ITAC con calls. (the crowd gasps!) And currently the board is cautious....but I see the day when it's part of the landscape.


How do you find the time to do that when all of your time is taken up plotting against those poor Miata and Borgward owners?

:D

[Marcus Miller]

Aside from the afremoentioned Subie; NAyone have aliost of AWD non fored induction cars that might be considered for it*?

As for Turbos- every leadership board thinks they have the 'way' of keeping them in check; look at the results in the T classes over hte past couple years to see what a fiasco that turned out to be.... I would urge strong caution before allowing FI cars into IT.

[shwah]

Some cars off the top of my head:

2004 R32 fit into ITR? 240hp 3.2 vr6, awd
Audi TT 3.2 same deal.
Audi Quattro Coupe from 80s/90s were all available in awd, non boosted variants
Same for Audi 100
Same for Audi 80
Same for Audi A4
Probably other Audis...
E30 325 ix
Honda civic wagon of some vintage
Toyota Matrix
Would the early Carrera 4 fit in ITR?

[tnord]

Subaru SVX
Early AWD 911's?

[tom91ita]

AWD = no.

turbo = someday (5-10 years out).

i see some 1.0 liter turbos in our future as we go back to the days of the 1977 Civic CVCC 5 speed or 1983 GTi's to try and get the corporate fuel economy up there.

[Scooter]

I think that AWD would be much easier to account for in the Improved Touring formula than a turbo or supercharger.

I think AWD would be great and a fun addition.

[mossaidis]

I think that AWD would be much easier to account for in the Improved Touring formula than a turbo or supercharger.

I think AWD would be great and a fun addition.

ditto

[lateapex911]

So-
interesting responses.
How many of you have written in? All you have to do is what you've already done here. Copy and paste with an intro if you like, just BE HEARD! YOU make a difference.

More than any category I bet, the ITAC wants to talk to you and wants to hear what you say..so engage. (and if you are new to the club, you probably don't know how much of a change that reall is, and what it truly represents.)

Here, I
I'll make it easy.

[email protected]

[Marcus Miller]

Jake,
check. email sent.

[RSTPerformance]

So-
interesting responses.
How many of you have written in? All you have to do is what you've already done here. Copy and paste with an intro if you like, just BE HEARD! YOU make a difference.

More than any category I bet, the ITAC wants to talk to you and wants to hear what you say..so engage. (and if you are new to the club, you probably don't know how much of a change that reall is, and what it truly represents.)

Here, I
I'll make it easy.

[email protected]


Jake-

I have sent in my request supporting AWD in IT!!! I also put in a request to consider the 1986 Audi 4000 Quattro and the 1990 Audi Coupe Quattro. We have 2 of the 1990 Audi Coupe Quattros waiting a ready to be built!

I also wrote in and asked why my prior requests have not been addressed yet. I am waiting on 4 or 5 months now??? They had great follow-up in the begining, but I did expect something by the June edition of Fast Track.

As for the AWD thing, I bet we will need to wait a long time before anything happens. Even though they requested info, I think the think they are addressing bigger issues, such as running all current cars through the process.

Raymond "Keeping my fingers crossed for several things" Blethen

[Knestis]

We have a huge list of ITB questions that we wanted to take care of all at once, and yours was one Raymond. We had some questions re: finalizing procedures and practices and wanted to be sure that we dealt with all of the B issues under the same assumptions. I actually spent a bunch of time building a spreadsheet of specs on the many cars in question and we now have enough information - I think - to break that logjam.

K

EDIT (for Ray and anyone else asking for listings or review) - It is VERY helpful if you can provide a pdf of or url linking to the general specs the ITAC needs for consideration, including the ITCS specs plus stock power/torque values. It's also helpful if you provide model/year series information, explaining which cars have the same specs, if/when they changed substantially, etc.

[cjb25hs]

I found the inclusion into ITS of the 2.0L 170-hp/145 tq, higher-compression, very-large-braked Ford Focus SVT with 6-speed Getrag interesting, especially since it was given the same weight as the Integra GS-R...should be a good runner.

GA

Build one and it will win. I have always been a fan of the svt and believe as far as FWD cars in ITS it is by far the best option. Getting one down to weight will probably be a challenge but obtainable. I would assume that based on the SVT being classed in S that a regular Focus wilth the Mazda 3 2.3 liter motor will be an A car. Specifically the most popular Focus with this motor is the 4 door ST which is what I have as a daily driver. It has all of the SVT suspension with the exception of springs and has 151hp and 154tq. This would make sense with the clasification of the '04 Mazda 3.

[Rud]

Wrote my email in favor of classifying normally-aspirated AWD cars in IT. My brother and I want to build an Audi 4000. :)