AWD in ITR or ITS?

[StephenB]

So I haven't done a ton of research But I have started the thought process... I absolutly love driving in the rain and driving AWD :026: Driving in the snow and doing rally cross stuff feels like my roots and my passion so bringing AWD to IT is very exciting for me! My initial thoughts is that I would like to build this car with my brother and another buddy to help cut the costs and allow us all to utilize it. Most likely Run Enduros together and then run in the regionals in ITR/S, ITE, SPO, or whatever classes it may fit in to get the most track time for all of us. With all that being said what would you suggest for a car to run in ITR or possibly ITS? Does anyone have any idea what the HP and weight goals would be for each of those classes?

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: so far I am most interested in the 2006 to present 3.0 Audi A4 or possibly the 2002 to present 3.0 Jaguar X-type

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rough stock HP targets for you to look at:

ITS: 160-180hp
ITR: 180-225hp

The Subaru 2.5RS is a car people love. 164 HP. Remember, no forced induction.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/2207965711_b46200911f.jpg

[CRallo]

2.5 RS FTW!

Andy, that wing isn't IT legal! :p no JDM parts yo!

[ericblois]

the Audi A4 3.0 220hp would probly fit into ITR not sure about the jag, a audi 2.8 190hp i think might get into ITS the 06 and newer audi's are 3.2s and my have to much power for ITR since it has 255

[Marcus Miller]

Based on what Andy said above, both the 3.0 and 2.8 would be ITR cars...

[JoshS]

Based on what Andy said above, both the 3.0 and 2.8 would be ITR cars...

It really just depends on what weights the process comes up with for each class and whether those weights are achievable.

Does anyone have a feel for how light a fully-prepped-for-IT instance of each of these cars would be?

[Marcus Miller]

Touche. I was going off the rated HP; I would guess high 2's

[ericblois]

the audi 2.8 makes the same hp as the 328i e36 but is a heavyer car thats why i said might get in to ITS. i current am employed at an Audi dealer and own 3 bmw 86 325e 96 328 and 98m3 2 are racecars. i think it would be challenging to get a 2.8 audi to be fast in ITS if only i had the money i would try just to try

[JeffYoung]

The 2.8 Audi would not fit in S. Curb weight is not considered in classifying a car, other than if the car can't get down to its "process" weight. That would not be an issue with a car with 190 hp stock.

The E36 325 at 189 was just a tad too much and has to run a restrictor in S, something that I think/hope won't happen again.

Can the 2.8 Audi get down to approx. 2700 lbs or so?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 2.8 Audi would not fit in S. Curb weight is not considered in classifying a car, other than if the car can't get down to its "process" weight. That would not be an issue with a car with 190 hp stock.

The E36 325 at 189 was just a tad too much and has to run a restrictor in S, something that I think/hope won't happen again.

Can the 2.8 Audi get down to approx. 2700 lbs or so?

Sure it is Jeff. If it has a 3500lb curb weight, we would be looking at ITS. If it had a 3000lb curb weight, we would be looking at ITR.

In ITS that car would be about 3065 and in ITR it would be about 2670. I bet it's more of an ITS car based on those weights.

[JeffYoung]

See what I wrote -- we don't look at curb weight until we run the car through the process and see if it can make weight in it's "natural" class. Here, at 190 stock hp, it's just over the normal ITS threshold. There are no other ITS cars with 190 stock hp, 189 being the closest on the restricted E36.

You are probably right though that the car may not be able to make weight in ITR. But I don't know. The 2.8s were vintage 96/97/98, and may, like an E36, be able to get down into the 2700s. If so, I suspect any potential builder would want to run at the lower weight in R versus the higher weight in S.

[Bill Miller]

See what I wrote -- we don't look at curb weight until we run the car through the process and see if it can make weight in it's "natural" class. Here, at 190 stock hp, it's just over the normal ITS threshold. There are no other ITS cars with 190 stock hp, 189 being the closest on the restricted E36.

You are probably right though that the car may not be able to make weight in ITR. But I don't know. The 2.8s were vintage 96/97/98, and may, like an E36, be able to get down into the 2700s. If so, I suspect any potential builder would want to run at the lower weight in R versus the higher weight in S.

<cough> New Beetle <cough>

[JoshS]

You are probably right though that the car may not be able to make weight in ITR. But I don't know. The 2.8s were vintage 96/97/98, and may, like an E36, be able to get down into the 2700s. If so, I suspect any potential builder would want to run at the lower weight in R versus the higher weight in S.

I strongly doubt they can get that anywhere near that light. We're talking about the V6 Quattro here. All of that equipment adds hundreds of pounds to the car that you can't remove in IT. They weighed something like 3250 lbs stock. You are theorizing that they could lose 600+ lbs while gaining a cage (3250-650 = 2600; 2600 + 180lb driver = 2780). To get to Andy's weight they'd have to lose 800 lbs!

I think it's likely to turn out to be a much better fit and more realistic build in ITS. But then, we haven't yet determined what sort of process to use for AWD cars so I'm not sure where Andy got his weights.

[ericblois]

only info ive found is that on the newer 2.8 5 valve motor (190hp) not 2 valve (172hp) which is in the 1996, the 97-01 A4 curb weight would be around 3384 quattro and manual one thing that would need to be looked at for the first classing of a newer audi is they do not have front camber adjustment you would either put in an aftermarket adjustable upper links or try and mismatch from another audi to gain or reduce camber.

[ericblois]

and the 02-05 A4 comes with the 3.0 (220) would be an ITR car but they came with 5speed trans or a 6speed trans along with the same issue of no camber adjustment in the front as the older 96, 97-01 A4s did. ive only been able to find that this chassis starts at 3583 so maybe both cars can play in ITR there better be a good weight difference between them though just my thought

[Marcus Miller]

I would be totally and completely against any exception for adjustable upper control arms to allow th car gain camber though. Thatose types of one-off exception should not be allowed in IT.

[GKR_17]

There are no other ITS cars with 190 stock hp, 189 being the closest on the restricted E36.

How about these three (none are restricted):

Alfa Romeo Milano Verde - 183hp
Porsche 944S - 188hp
Toyota Supra (87) - 200hp

[ericblois]

and what about drive train loss? will that be estimated for AWD cars? or is it looked at at all now?

and not allowing them to have some adjustablity with front camber when every other strut car can have caster caber plates sounds unfair to me

[Lael Cleland]

I own a European repair shop, I bought a 2000 A4 Q 1.8T for $700 it was trashed...I have been peicing it back together, I found a set of sport Bilsteins/H&R springs used, 12.4 in rotors from an A6 w/carriers(calipers are the same). My ITB 84GTI has a full tilt suspension, Spherical C-arm brgs, groupe 1 bilsteins, weld in camber plates bla bla bla........ The Audi Gains neg camber in the out side front wheel in a turn, -1.0 static, turns in to -4ish....The suspension geometry is the coolest thing i have ever, casterish...seen....Quallity is not that cool.....The car will out handle my ITB car with balled fusion HRIs Any day of the week, Wet or dry, mud etc..... I have not weighed the audi guessing 3700lbs w/cd changer, heated leather seats, sunroof......It could loose 800lbs easy!8-10 air bags, seats, exaust is 150lbs, 2nd air pump, built in tools/first aid/ 6disk cd changer/cd&tape in the stereo, amplified speakers, maybe loose 1000lbs!

The thought has gone through my mind, make it a race car, Wife wont let me.....Nicest car I have ever owned she says......Most fun car I have ever owned!!!!!!Dents and all!

The 2.8 is a good engine, vc gaskets/timing chain tensioner gaskets leak all the time, 3.0L coils suck, 8 control arms in the front, Tie rods, wheel brgs, All go bad often, drive line is bullet proof! Subi has a WEAK 2.5L Junk in my opinion, 325IX or XI is a good car, lots of part around, Volvo has some good stuff, weak side gear/transfer case....
Sorry for the long winded opinoin.....

[Knestis]

Duh - the e30 325ix would be interesting...!

KK

[JoshS]

Duh - the e30 325ix would be interesting...!

There is no way that the 325ix is a better car than the RWD 325i unless it was very wet. It's much heavier and much more complex. Lots of drivetrain loss. I guess you could have a rain car, all set up with AWD and a nice soft suspension. Race the RWD car in the dry and the AWD car in the pouring rain, otherwise, no thanks.

The tradeoff isn't as obvious when the 2WD variant is FWD though, as in the Audis. The early A4 FWD cars had the VW beam axle in the rear too, not the fancier rear suspension in the quattros.

[JeffYoung]

Grafton, duh, I forgot about those guys. Especially the Supra, which probably should be an R car......

[ericblois]

on the e30 xi /ix car would it be classed the same weight as the rwd? if so you could just add to the line thats already there for the rwd

[Knestis]

>> ...I guess you could have a rain car, all set up with AWD and a nice soft suspension. Race the RWD car in the dry and the AWD car in the pouring rain...

Well, yeah. That's precisely the idea, Josh!

K

[Marcus Miller]

Grafton, duh, I forgot about those guys. Especially the Supra, which probably should be an R car......

Why hasn't anyone built one?

[Greg Amy]

Andy told me yesterday he knows of a third-gen ITR Supra out there somewhere. Ohio, was it?

I'm pretty much of the mindset that any car that's not an attractive racer in 2WD trim - regardless of the end doing the motivation - is very likely not going to be attractive in 4WD, possibly not in rain, either. And anyone that tries to build one with the hopes of winning in the rain while simultaneously ignoring its dry foibles, will spend a lot of money and likely be frustrated.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Greg, I think I saw vid of one down at Texas World, from the late 90s -- weren't you down that way back then?

I've also seen vid of one out West racing against a Z car in the mid 90s.

But, I think the weight stopped any of the top prep shops from building one in teh NEDiv or teh SEDiv.

[Greg Amy]

Greg, I think I saw vid of one down at Texas World, from the late 90s -- weren't you down that way back then?
We talking Supra? No, I moved to CT in '92. Dammit.

That's a big car; it'll need some serious torques and great handling to be competitive. It'll look good, but damn that's a long row to hoe...

[pballance]

Andy told me yesterday he knows of a third-gen ITR Supra out there somewhere. Ohio, was it?

GA

Not sure if this is 3rd gen or not, but Eric Van Cleef and his brothers race their ITR Supra in SEDIV. He has helped me a bunch on setup of my car and in discussion he thinks the car is too heavy as it currently sits.

[ericblois]

Not sure if this is 3rd gen or not, but Eric Van Cleef and his brothers race their ITR Supra in SEDIV. He has helped me a bunch on setup of my car and in discussion he thinks the car is too heavy as it currently sits. in the pic is a fourth gen. a bmw e46 330xi would be an option in ITR in my mind hmm

[ericblois]

another car that may get chosen to run in ITR would be the vw R32 with 240 the same as the s2000 that is an ITR car although the audi TT would not since it was rated at 250

[StephenB]

R32 would be awesome... :026:
TT is turbo until a year ago I think, already looked at that one :(

Stephen

Still lurking and looking at options :024:

[ericblois]

the TT had a vr6 3.2 option but is 250hp started in 2002/2003 i think

[ericblois]

2003 mazda 626 awd for ITS or ITA i guess. 4 cylinder was rated at 159hp or is that car to new. the suzuki sx4 is awd and 143hp theres an ITA?

[JoshS]

another car that may get chosen to run in ITR would be the vw R32 with 240 the same as the s2000 that is an ITR car although the audi TT would not since it was rated at 250

Weren't all of those cars turbos?

Anyway, there's no hard limit on horsepower in ITR (or in any class). A 300hp car could be in there as long as it was heavy enough. But we're not going to add a car to ITR that has to carry silly amounts of ballast to make process weight. A car like that would be just too fast for ITR and will need to wait until the club is ready to add a faster class.

[Greg Amy]

the TT had a vr6 3.2 option but is 250hp started in 2002/2003 i think
Yes, but that was just a computer change plus a couple other things that are legal to change in Improved Touring (exhaust, intake routing). Thus, the ITAC will classify it using the lower horsepower rating.

Right...?


Weren't all of those cars turbos?
R32? No, they were all the 3.2L VR6 normally-aspirated. Or do you mean the TT (see above...)

[benspeed]

I curious what folks consider silly amounts of ballast - I've just finished adding more weight to my car to offset the lightweight rims - I'm carrying 85 pounds in the footwell. hardly fits!

[Greg Amy]

I curious what folks consider silly amounts of ballast...I'm carrying 85 pounds in the footwell.
Pfft. When you start hitting 150-200# we'll be impressed... <wink>

[Andy Bettencourt]

I curious what folks consider silly amounts of ballast - I've just finished adding more weight to my car to offset the lightweight rims - I'm carrying 85 pounds in the footwell. hardly fits!

You need to buy lead and you aren't limited to the footwell anymore...

[lateapex911]

I curious what folks consider silly amounts of ballast - I've just finished adding more weight to my car to offset the lightweight rims - I'm carrying 85 pounds in the footwell. hardly fits!

Dude, go down to Hoboken and get yourself a hooker, starve her a bit and throw her in the trunk! Better weight distribution FTW!

[Knestis]

Again, Jake leaps the line! :)

You OK, dude? Do we need to schedule an intervention or something...?

K

[lateapex911]

Again, Jake leaps the line! :)

You OK, dude? Do we need to schedule an intervention or something...?

K

Sorry, A bit of RR-AX humor carried over. And a Jersey joke in there too, for a jersey boy.

[benspeed]

Not sure - the screaming after the race might alert tech - those Hoboken girls just might have guns too :-)

Andy - I just looked at the updated Sept GCR: looks like there is more room :-)

Ballast may be used. All ballast shall be located in the front
passenger footwell/seating area, aft of the firewall and any
footwell angle, and forward of the aft-edge of the forwardmost
passenger door opening, unless otherwsie specified on
the vehicle’s spec line. OEM front passenger seat location

[Lael Cleland]

No one has mentioned the AWD tempo V6.....

[bamfp]

I curious what folks consider silly amounts of ballast - I've just finished adding more weight to my car to offset the lightweight rims - I'm carrying 85 pounds in the footwell. hardly fits!


I have over 250# of lead in my ITB 914. That is beyond silly that is crazy.

[ericblois]

Yes, but that was just a computer change plus a couple other things that are legal to change in Improved Touring (exhaust, intake routing). Thus, the ITAC will classify it using the lower horsepower rating.

Right...? im not sure of the difference between the r32 240 and the TT vr6 250 3.2 it might just be the programming for the brand change VW vs Audi i think its the same drivetrain i dont know enough about the r32 to say for sure

[Greg Amy]

It would have to be different hp rating on the same car for it to be considered at the lower horsepower. Though what you suggest - comparing it to the R32's otherwise-identical horsepower rating as an illustration of what only an IT-allowed mod will produce - certainly brings up interesting points vis-a-vis how to rate the engine's power for IT classification...tent, meet camel...

[StephenB]

How about an AWD car that has:
a curb weight of 3428
A 3.2L 6 Cyl with 250HP
17Inch wheels
13.1" Vent. Front Brakes
10.4" Vent. Rear Brakes

What else do you need to help decide if it would fit in ITR??
Stephen

[JoshS]

How about an AWD car that has:
a curb weight of 3428
A 3.2L 6 Cyl with 250HP
17Inch wheels
13.1" Vent. Front Brakes
10.4" Vent. Rear Brakes

What else do you need to help decide if it would fit in ITR??
Stephen

Well, info about the car that would go on the spec line (like, say, make and model) would be a good start. But it seems like no problem for ITR. Of course, to assign a weight we'll have to come up with a process (adder?) for AWD cars. We have the go-ahead to do that now but it's a required step.

[lateapex911]

What kind of tq? How much weight can it lose? And, don't be coy, we all know what car that is. Silly boy, it will be a looong time before that's even on the track, much less at the front of the grid. ;)

(even if we classed it today, but send that request in and get the ball rolling. Why not, you guys love stirring up trouble, LOL))

[lawtonglenn]

Audi TT 3.2?

[Marcus Miller]

How does that fit in ITR? I thought the S2000 and Rx8 were at the top of the expected HP goals for ITR?

[StephenB]

Marcus,

That was what I was kinda wondering is if a 250 HP car could be classified. Jag X-type may still be my 1st choice but If I am going to spend that much money maybe I should take a little longer and build the Audi... My brother and I also already have ,sitting outback now, the Audi coupe Quattro from 1990 that may fit into ITA??

Jake, Is tourque part of the process?

And yes it is the TT 3.2! I personally can't do this now but I would love to dream... IF I took the next 2 years off from racing I could build it... I would be just as happy doing a few autocrosses and maybe some kart stuff to keep me occupied. The only reason I have been waiting for the past year or so is to see the dust settle...

Stephen

[Marcus Miller]

Marcus,

That was what I was kinda wondering is if a 250 HP car could be classified. Jag X-type may still be my 1st choice but If I am going to spend that much money maybe I should take a little longer and build the Audi... My brother and I also already have ,sitting outback now, the Audi coupe Quattro from 1990 that may fit into ITA??

Stephen

Yep, I'm with you.. I guess not knowing how AWD fits in the classificaiton matrix/schema (I just can't call it a process), hampers us, but I would believe the weight would have to be extraordinarily high. As Andy told me in one of htese threads recently, ths HP ceiling isn't a ceiling, but a guideline in terms of fitting cars in at appropriateweights for the chassis and class. (paraphrased in my own language)

[Nigel Stu]

I've been watching IT for a while, thinking about getting back into it since AWD is allowed. I've been very interested in building a Subie 2.5RS for some time as a fun track-day car, why not take it all the way to race prep if it can???

So - where is it going to end up? 2 door and 4 door versions, but I prefer the 2-door.

[Knestis]

Wish we could give you an informed estimate re: classing and weight. Three members of the IT Ad Hoc committee (charged with making recommendations to the club racing board about stuff like this) who were among the most active here have left the committee - myself included. A couple still post here so I'll let them chime in.

KK

[JoshS]

This one is ready to go, all we need to get the classing complete is a VTS sheet. If you'd be willing to fill one out and submit it quickly, we'll try to get it addressed and listed at our next call (but probably couldn't be published until the April Fastrack in late March). I'm sure it will end up in ITS but I'm not sure of the weight right now.

I personally have taken the action item to try to get that VTS completed but if an interested member would be willing to do it instead, that would be awesome! Please let me know.

[Ron Earp]

This one is ready to go, all we need to get the classing complete is a VTS sheet. If you'd be willing to fill one out and submit it quickly, we'll try to get it addressed and listed at our next call


How is that feasible since half the ITAC has resigned, is the ITAC even fully functional at this time?

Not trying to be obtuse but is AWD IT really on the short list? If it is on the short list by some chance, at this point in time, then IT racers should be more concerned than they already are.

[JoshS]

Yes and yes, Ron. But there are 5 ITAC members right now, and there's a pretty long agenda. I'm confident that this has been well-enough vetted to complete.

Really, I'll say it again. Things are nowhere near as broken as the idealigues are making them out to be. There are practical and workable solutions and IT is not going anywhere.

[Ron Earp]

Things are nowhere near as broken as the idealigues are making them out to be.

You mean the former ITAC members?

I agree, IT isn't going anywhere different in the short term. But I think the long term rules and class stability is what most folks are worried about.

Time will tell.

[StephenB]

Josh, is it possible to post what AWD cars are being considered? This is the biggest reason I have waited so long on building a new car...

Thanks,
Stephen

[JoshS]

Josh, is it possible to post what AWD cars are being considered? This is the biggest reason I have waited so long on building a new car...

Right now, the Subaru 2.5RS is the only one that has been discussed, because it's the only letter that was received. This month we got a letter from Raymond for the Audi 4000Q and another letter for the '90-'91 Audi Coupe Quattro. Those letters are new so have yet to be discussed but I see no reason why they wouldn't be classed.

[Knestis]

What decision has the ITAC made regarding consideration of AWD as a factor in setting weights, Josh? Depending on what day it is (and whether it's raining), people are going to disagree like mad about individual cases on race weights, so a repeatable factor is going to be really important to smooth implementation of this.

I think it's a fine idea, BTW.

K

[Nigel Stu]

This one is ready to go, all we need to get the classing complete is a VTS sheet. If you'd be willing to fill one out and submit it quickly, we'll try to get it addressed and listed at our next call (but probably couldn't be published until the April Fastrack in late March). I'm sure it will end up in ITS but I'm not sure of the weight right now.

I personally have taken the action item to try to get that VTS completed but if an interested member would be willing to do it instead, that would be awesome! Please let me know.


Josh - if you have started the VTS, send it my way and I'll get it completed and sent in. Save me some double work...

you can email it to me at: [email protected]

Thanks!


Also, perhaps we can start a thread on racer requested/suggested AWD cars? that way we can get a comprehensive list.