ITB Sentra - WTF?

[erlrich]

Was just perusing ITB specs, daydreaming about racing something that might actually have a chance at a win...but I digress...

Came across the B13 Sentra in ITB, and I see it is classed at 2520 lbs. I'm thinking, wow that's heavy for ITB, it must make gobs of power. I look it up and, um, no, not really - 110 HP and 108 TQ. So just for comparison, I check out the '03 Golf, which makes 115 HP and 122 TQ - and is listed at 2350 lbs!

So now I'm thinking, WTF? Is the Sentra one of those cars that got missed in the great realignment, or is there something I don't know about it? Can someone shed some light here?

Thanks.

[JeffYoung]

Correct. Probably not processed.

Process weight would be something like 2290 (110 x 1.25 x 17 x .98).


Was just perusing ITB specs, daydreaming about racing something that might actually have a chance at a win...but I digress...

Came across the B13 Sentra in ITB, and I see it is classed at 2520 lbs. I'm thinking, wow that's heavy for ITB, it must make gobs of power. I look it up and, um, no, not really - 110 HP and 108 TQ. So just for comparison, I check out the '03 Golf, which makes 115 HP and 122 TQ - and is listed at 2350 lbs!

So now I'm thinking, WTF? Is the Sentra one of those cars that got missed in the great realignment, or is there something I don't know about it? Can someone shed some light here?

Thanks.

[erlrich]

Correct. Probably not processed.

Process weight would be something like 2290 (110 x 1.25 x 17 x .98).

That sounds more like it - and with a 2300 lb curb weight it might actually make that weight even with a fat-ass like me in the seat.

Should I send a letter?

[lateapex911]

Why would you want to race a Sentra rather than your 240 Earl? Not for nothing, but your car is a proven front runner, while there are no Sentras built, and who knows how much $$ and development it would take to make one a front runner? MARRS aint weak in ITB!

[erlrich]

Why would you want to race a Sentra rather than your 240 Earl? Not for nothing, but your car is a proven front runner, while there are no Sentras built, and who knows how much $$ and development it would take to make one a front runner? MARRS aint weak in ITB!

Jake - not to start a big debate, but (and I know there are those who disagree) I'm 100% convinced the 240SX is done in ITA. Back when Stretch was winning at Atlanta, with a full-tilt, custom-everything, 100 lb lighter 240SX, he was winning with 1:43+ times. I know tracks change over the years, but I just don't see anyone getting one of these to run 41s at that track. Neal Harrison has one of the best built & driven 240s I've seen in the past few years, and he's still a couple of seconds off the ITA record at VIR on his best day.

And yeah, I know ITB is a very competitive class right now; that's why I'm looking there. I wouldn't want to run in a 'lame' class; hell I can go race with EMRA if I just want to collect a bunch of trophies. I know there have been some pretty fast Sentras in ITA (Crazy Joe's comes to mind immediately), so I think one of these - at the correct weight - could do pretty well in ITB. And like I said, I'm just daydreaming right now; but when I came across that listing I just thought it looked funny.

[Knestis]

Come to the darrrrk siiiide....

K

[erlrich]

Come to the darrrrk siiiide....

K

I'm sensing a disturbance in the farce...:wacko:

[gran racing]

Why not one of the Civics?

Actually...why not just buy a fast ITB car instead of building one? Save yourself a ton of time and money. You've already been doing it the hard way with the 240, no?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake - not to start a big debate, but (and I know there are those who disagree) I'm 100% convinced the 240SX is done in ITA. Back when Stretch was winning at Atlanta, with a full-tilt, custom-everything, 100 lb lighter 240SX, he was winning with 1:43+ times.


We SHOULD debate this. What times did Serra win with? Alex? Ya know Ruck ran in the 41's this year right? How do you explain that? Do you think that if Stretch built a car now, and developd it, he wouldn't be any faster?

Tracks change, tires get better, people develop. Look at how much faster Moser has gone in just the last 2 years under intense pressure. NOBODY thought there was anything left in that car - but guess what? It NEVER STOPS.

[erlrich]

Why not one of the Civics?

Actually...why not just buy a fast ITB car instead of building one? Save yourself a ton of time and money. You've already been doing it the hard way with the 240, no?

Dave - I don't speak Honda; if I were going to go with a known quantity I would take the Golf.

And I know conventional wisdom says buy rather than build, but I dont' think this works for everyone. In my case there are a number of reasons:

1. I'm one of those guys who likes to know every little modification that has been done to the car, and if it was done right. The only way I would ever buy a built car would be if it were a pro build directly from a place like FM or Brimtek, and unfortunately something like that is waaaaay outside my budget.

2. I've seen (and heard about) some of the shit guys have done, even on the fast cars, and I don't want to have to worry about whether my car is legal or not, or if it is going to blow up the next time I go on track.

3. I like the idea of building something different - as long as I think it has a shot at being competitive. Ok, so I'm a little weird that way.

4. I really, really like the idea of being competitive in a car that I built with my own hands. I can't imagine anything more satisfying.

[mossaidis]

I am not sure where the debate is ... the listing is incorrect and it needs to be fixed. EOT :) ok, let the hijacking begin! oh, it already did... teehee

Ironically,
Mickey

[Robbie]

The B13 Sentra has a ton of power being robbed by its crappy exhaust manifold. I think you'll easily be able to make process power on one. Sport Compact Car did a project on one back in 2001 and even without ECU tuning and a street tuned header, it made some large gains. I'll see if I can dig up the issue.

[Matt93SE]

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29893

You know you want it...

[erlrich]

We SHOULD debate this. What times did Serra win with? Alex? Ya know Ruck ran in the 41's this year right? How do you explain that? Do you think that if Stretch built a car now, and developd it, he wouldn't be any faster?

Tracks change, tires get better, people develop. Look at how much faster Moser has gone in just the last 2 years under intense pressure. NOBODY thought there was anything left in that car - but guess what? It NEVER STOPS.

Andy, you're probably right; given your background & experience your opinion is certainly worth about 1k times what mine is. I can only go by what I've seen for myself. My belief is Bob had already figured out how to get everything he could out of that car when he was winning with it. He had one of the best builders in the country doing his engines; and still he was blowing up engines that are generally thought of as pretty indestructible. He had the best suspension (Ohlins shocks IIRC), was running a custom header back before they were the norm, had spherical bearings everywhere, and the budget to make it all work. I doubt you'll ever see another 240SX as fast as his was. I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but until that happens I'm sticking with my opinion.

BTW - you're a pretty savy guy, and from what I hear a pretty ok driver (:D), why do you run a Miata in ITA and not a 240SX or Intega?

[erlrich]

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29893

You know you want it...

Nice ka - but wrong class...

[Andy Bettencourt]

BTW - you're a pretty savy guy, and from what I hear a pretty ok driver (:D), why do you run a Miata in ITA and not a 240SX or Intega?

Those up here know I have a 240SX coupe 'thing'. Always wanted one. I have seen the dyno sheets on built motors with a Wolf ECU and 'Stretch' header, and the power is class-leading. People who have driven them and SM's tell me they are the best handling cars they have ever driven (with spherical suspension).

When I sold my ITS RX-7, I built an SM for business reasons. Turned it into an ITA car for business reasons. I didn't go with the 240 because nobody could keep them together, not because they can't be fast. Teg? FWD sucks. :)

If I could buld and own any IT cars in class they would be:

ITR: E46 325 Coupe
ITS: 240Z
ITA: 240SX Coupe
ITB: Corolla GTS
ITC: Datsun 510

[shwah]

So just for comparison, I check out the '03 Golf, which makes 115 HP and 122 TQ - and is listed at 2350 lbs!

It doesn't change your point at all, but IIRC the 93-98 Golf was moved up to 2400, and the 99-04 Golf should have been also...

[Matt93SE]

Those up here know I have a 240SX coupe 'thing'. Always wanted one. I have seen the dyno sheets on built motors with a Wolf ECU and 'Stretch' header, and the power is class-leading. People who have driven them and SM's tell me they are the best handling cars they have ever driven (with spherical suspension).

When I sold my ITS RX-7, I built an SM for business reasons. Turned it into an ITA car for business reasons. I didn't go with the 240 because nobody could keep them together, not because they can't be fast. Teg? FWD sucks. :)

If I could buld and own any IT cars in class they would be:

ITR: E46 325 Coupe
ITS: 240Z
ITA: 240SX Coupe
ITB: Corolla GTS
ITC: Datsun 510

what's the common problem with reliability? I have a 4-valve engine so life's a bit different, but it's got 110k miles on it, and it's been a dedicated DE/race car since ~95k or so. Stock internals of course..

[lateapex911]

I chatted with Stretch (Briefly!) on the podium at the ARRC after his ITA loss to Ruck, and he was shaking his head, not pleased. He said: "Man if I thought the ITA race was going to be this hard I would have done the brakes and tuned the car....shit, I thought the SM race was going to be the tough one!"
(That was the year he WALKED the field in SM, only to later find issues with the head, that, IIRC, the builder took blame for.)

At the time, I think Bob was doing some WC races, and decided to do the ARRC ITA race at the last minute. Patullo was there, IIRC, and chated with him a bit about that.
Point being, he didn't always bring his A game.

[quadzjr]

3. I like the idea of building something different - as long as I think it has a shot at being competitive. Ok, so I'm a little weird that way.

4. I really, really like the idea of being competitive in a car that I built with my own hands. I can't imagine anything more satisfying.

Personal experience it can be very diffiult to produce something that will satisfy both 3 and 4. That has not been already expolored.. We all look at the numbers.

<-Built/developed MR2 to be different

[gran racing]

You want to run up front, don't want to spend a ton of money to do so, and aren't willing to wait several years to do so???????

I am NOT trying to sell my car, but can tell you someone like myself is your prime person to buy from. They've spent a TON of time researching, developing, researching, and improving a car. The person has experienced the weak points then addressed them. Then if you're lucky, they've proven the car is capable of running up front even though there's more that can be done to it.

Go ahead, build some car on a low budget. We'll get you out there and I'll waive to you as I'm lapping you next Labor Day. :p

Yes, I get there's the "Earl built this" and not a "hey, that's Andy's old car" attitude. At the same time, you want to take the driver out of the equation as you're looking for a car which can be competitive. Essentially what we all want is "that car is only competitive because Earl built and drives it". :)

Dave, who is kinda but not really trying to sell his car. Much more towards the not really side.

[Andy Bettencourt]

what's the common problem with reliability? I have a 4-valve engine so life's a bit different, but it's got 110k miles on it, and it's been a dedicated DE/race car since ~95k or so. Stock internals of course..

Your motor is TOTALLY different.

[mossaidis]

3. I like the idea of building something different - as long as I think it has a shot at being competitive. Ok, so I'm a little weird that way.

4. I really, really like the idea of being competitive in a car that I built with my own hands. I can't imagine anything more satisfying.

I would not agree more (minus roll cage, engine rebuid and tuning/setup). Just add $15K+ to the purchase of the car.

[Chip42]

back to the sentra:

The chassis is a known quantity, thanks to the SE-R there's reasonable parts availability in the aftermarket, and the chassis stuff transfers. the car is stupid light, and they sold them by the boatload, especially here in central FL, so there's a ton of salvage parts to be had and rollers are dirt cheap. the motor makes good power, has a variable timing intake cam, and the drivetrain is very simple and that works well in this situation. shifter is pretty good, and very good with new OEM bushings. like most (all?) nissans, most of the non critical gaskets are RTV by design, which makes for a smaller spares inventory. most of the hard parts carried over into the B14 chassis too, further aiding parts support. the hall effect distributor in the B13 is less prone to failure than the optical setup in the B14, and the B13 has a better rear suspension.

downsides: the rod cap likes to fall off of the #1 cylinder. unfortunately, the hole the loose rod creates on the exhaust side of the motor is obscured by the giant cast alternator / AC bracket. I think we found 4 or 5 of these in the yard before coming upon a "good" bottom end for my old beater, which was out of commission for the same reason. better hardware and checking the torque as maintenance should make this a non issue in service, but it does play havoc on the salvage spare blocks. drum brakes on the rear.

Also the GA16DE is a 16 valve motor, so under the current rules it would be 2380 lbs. But I don't think the 30% "expected" gains are too far out of line for this motor, and I don't want to start a pissing match about the 30% rule.

all told, I think it'd be a good car with minimal effort, and a very good car with development. it'll never be sexy, but neither will a lot of the beaters in ITB.

the Single cam 240sx is a fast, good handling car, but you never know if the race will be longer than the fuse on the motor. I believe that this too could be overcome but I think that those interested in doing so have all moved on.

I generally agree on buy before build, except where I get why you wouldn't (we built 2 IT MR2s from scratch, an ITB del sol, ITS 99 civic Si, and 90 Civic Si for FP).

[Knestis]

>> Dave - I don't speak Honda; if I were going to go with a known quantity I would take the Golf.

The dark side is less dark by the glow of the Check Engine light. :)

Kidding aside, I think the Nissan would be a very good ITB car.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Back on Topic for me too:

So Earl, the only way this car will be competitive is if it can out-perform it's process power and handle better than everthing in a straight line. I don't see how you can't draw a direct parallel between this car and the Sentra SE-R / NX2000. That car, with ~155whp, is about 75lbs 'light' by the numbers.

I would build it if you were 100% confident that 125whp was possible (5% over the 'expected' 30%). THAT is a butt-load for an ITB car, especially at 2380lbs of process weight.

My presonal recipe for a great IT car is one that HANDLES better than anything else, then try and make process power. Our S2000 is an example of this. I would build a Boxster too. In ITB, I would build a Honda with a DW front if I wasn't such a fanboi of the Corolla GTS (knowing it woudn't be competitive because it can't make process power).

Actually, the best car for me in ITB would be the 924. But only a few guys in the country who have done it so it's an adventure. Honda or VW in ITB is the easy button.

[StephenB]

And I know conventional wisdom says buy rather than build, but I dont' think this works for everyone. In my case there are a number of reasons:

1. I'm one of those guys who likes to know every little modification that has been done to the car, and if it was done right. The only way I would ever buy a built car would be if it were a pro build directly from a place like FM or Brimtek, and unfortunately something like that is waaaaay outside my budget.

2. I've seen (and heard about) some of the shit guys have done, even on the fast cars, and I don't want to have to worry about whether my car is legal or not, or if it is going to blow up the next time I go on track.

3. I like the idea of building something different - as long as I think it has a shot at being competitive. Ok, so I'm a little weird that way.

4. I really, really like the idea of being competitive in a car that I built with my own hands. I can't imagine anything more satisfying.

I TOTALLY agree with you :) Building my last car this past summer was almost MORE fun than actually driving it on track. Granted I am not even close to the front guys yet so someday maybe it will become more fun to race it than it was to build it! The first session I went on track with my new car was just as exciting and I had the same if not more nerves then the start when I qualified second to my brother at the ARRC. I will also never forget going 130 down the back straight for the first time at WG and saying to myself "Holy shit... we actually got this thing to work!... now which bolt didn't I tighten..." My BEST MEMORY that I will NEVER forget is still the day I got the logbook and to be honest I would hang that on the wall LONG before any of the first place trophies I have ever gotten. (That's my picture that very day holding my logbook in my avatar!)

I think to some of us it's about winning and to others it's about the overall experience from start to end. Ya I want both but in the end racing something you built with your own hands along with friends has a different level of satisfaction even if I never do win, for me anyway.

With all that being said... building a top level car that could be competitive is SO damn expensive! Even when you try really hard to be cheap! Just think of all the money you will put into a new car and what you COULD have done to your current car before you make your final decision! I could have had a kick ass ITB car if I spent all that money on my old car...

Stephen

[Knestis]

Who wants to build my next car because they love it? Bueller? Anyone? Sign me up for some of that.

K

[StephenB]

Who wants to build my next car because they love it? Bueller? Anyone? Sign me up for some of that.

K

Kirk... I meant building it as a project for yourself with friends. Trust me if you lived a few miles from me I would absolutly love to do it WITH you. Building things with friends IS something I enjoy to do. I love to hang out with friends and DO stuff... not sit around and play video games and drink beer, but actually accomplish things! Like remodel rooms in your house or build a racecar :)

Stephen

[erlrich]

Back on Topic for me too:

So Earl, the only way this car will be competitive is if it can out-perform it's process power and handle better than everthing in a straight line. I don't see how you can't draw a direct parallel between this car and the Sentra SE-R / NX2000. That car, with ~155whp, is about 75lbs 'light' by the numbers.

I would build it if you were 100% confident that 125whp was possible (5% over the 'expected' 30%). THAT is a butt-load for an ITB car, especially at 2380lbs of process weight.

My presonal recipe for a great IT car is one that HANDLES better than anything else, then try and make process power. Our S2000 is an example of this. I would build a Boxster too. In ITB, I would build a Honda with a DW front if I wasn't such a fanboi of the Corolla GTS (knowing it woudn't be competitive because it can't make process power).

Actually, the best car for me in ITB would be the 924. But only a few guys in the country who have done it so it's an adventure. Honda or VW in ITB is the easy button.

I have to agree with your assessment of the Sentra - and I wasn't aware (hadn't really given it any thought) the GA was a 16 valve, and thus would be saddled with a 30% multiplier. I do believe that for this car to have any chance at being competitive it would need to make a little better than the process power, and at 30% I would be surprised if it did (disclaimer - not a Nissan expert, so I could be dead wrong).

Also guys, remember I said I was looking though the listings and thought this one looked wrong - I never said I wanted to build one...

I also thought the 924 looked like a great car for ITB, but I've heard the p cars can be huge pains in the ass to build, not to mention expensive. I would also think the 200SX (S12) would be a good choice, but the few guys I've heard of who are running them don't seem to be tearing up the tracks.

And now that I look at it - is it just me, or does the 200SX also look like it's a little porky? The number I'm finding on the CA20E (which is a SOHC) say it makes 115/108 - the same HP and less TQ than the Golf? Are the Nissans getting no love from the SCCA?

[erlrich]

I think to some of us it's about winning and to others it's about the overall experience from start to end. Ya I want both but in the end racing something you built with your own hands along with friends has a different level of satisfaction even if I never do win, for me anyway.

Thank you - I'm glad someone gets it.



With all that being said... building a top level car that could be competitive is SO damn expensive! Even when you try really hard to be cheap! Just think of all the money you will put into a new car and what you COULD have done to your current car before you make your final decision! I could have had a kick ass ITB car if I spent all that money on my old car...

Stephen

I hear you, and I've been debating that very thing for some time now. Ultimately it comes down to one question; does it make sense to keep putting money into a car that you believe will never be competitive. If that is the case, you either need to be content with what you have, and resign yourself to mid-packdom forever, or you go looking for something else to try.

[erlrich]

The dark side is less dark by the glow of the Check Engine light. :)


So, now it's "give in to your sorta dark side"? That just doesn't have the same ring...


Who wants to build my next car because they love it? Bueller? Anyone? Sign me up for some of that.

K

Are you sure you want ME building your next car, knowing I'm thinking about moving to ITB? ;)

[JeffYoung]

Kirk said it before, but I don't really think there is any car (well, I'm sure there are some) that if processed, and close to process power, doesn't have a shot if the time and effort is made on driver development and car development.

That's the great thing about the process in my view. Get the cars close and let drivers and car development/prep sort'em out. The oddballs seem to bear this out.

Greg's NX2000 is a case in point. It has overdoggy power, so work on it's strength and use that.

My car -- torque. Work on getting off the corner and use that to your advantage.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are the Nissans getting no love from the SCCA?

In a nutshell, no. Beck when they used their dartboard for weight, they saddled some cars with FUD weight. Those cars never hit the radar in the GR because nobody was running them and there was little knowledge. Run what you want through at 25 or 30% based on 4 per cyl in ITB (bleh), add 50 for DW, multiply by .98 for FWD and see what spits out. I bet you could get 4-5 Nissans redone next month.

[JeffYoung]

That is the true beauty of the Process. I wish you guys who worked so hard on it could see it in action. Doing weight on a car generally just takes a few minutes unless here is a torque or a expected power issue.

We could do 4-5 cars easy. Earl, toanswer your question, yes, please write a letter and we will get right on these.

Thanks guys.

[Matt93SE]

Are the Nissans getting no love from the SCCA?

I'm beginning to think they're being shunned by SCCA in favor of anything German or Mazda.

[JeffYoung]

Not in IT.

In ITS, the 240z/260z/280z/300zx and the 240sx are all class leaders, or at least competitive.

In ITA, the NX2000 and SE-R are very competitive, and are underweight vis a vis the power they make (far more so than the alleged ITA Miata overdog).

In ITB, if the Sentra and the 200sx have not been processed, more than happy to do that.

In ITR, the Z32 300ZX will I think be a front running car after development.

[DavidM]

I think the ITB car could be fun. After just re-tub'ing a car, I don't know that I'd want to build one from scratch, though. I just don't have that kind of time.

To get back off topic. Some comments on the 240SX debate since I have what amounts to Stretch's old car. :eclipsee_steering:


We SHOULD debate this. What times did Serra win with? Alex? Ya know Ruck ran in the 41's this year right? How do you explain that? Do you think that if Stretch built a car now, and developd it, he wouldn't be any faster?

Tracks change, tires get better, people develop. Look at how much faster Moser has gone in just the last 2 years under intense pressure. NOBODY thought there was anything left in that car - but guess what? It NEVER STOPS.

I think Ruck ran *A* 1:41 this year. I don't think he ran a bunch of them. Stretch ran consistent 1:43s in 2004 when he battled with Serra. That was before the repave. The repave supposedly shaved 2 secs off times, but that was several years ago.


Those up here know I have a 240SX coupe 'thing'. Always wanted one. I have seen the dyno sheets on built motors with a Wolf ECU and 'Stretch' header, and the power is class-leading. People who have driven them and SM's tell me they are the best handling cars they have ever driven (with spherical suspension).


You have said this several times. I have asked for those dyno sheets to be produced and have yet to see them. I have a dyno sheet for the motor Stretch raced in 2004. It made 144 whp and 15x tq (don't remember the exact #). Now, this was before open ECUs and before the intake track was open in front of the throttle body. An off-season project is to put in a Nistune ECU that can be programmed real time and fix-up the intake. I know Neal is running a custom built ECU based on a 16-bit Silvia ECU and whatever hp he is making is probably going to be real close to max. Based on TraqMate data I seem to be close to the Integras in top speed at the end of the back straight. I'm hitting 117/118 and Hoppe said he was hitting 119 and Hoppe was a better driver. We all seem to be down on the Miata, though.


I chatted with Stretch (Briefly!) on the podium at the ARRC after his ITA loss to Ruck, and he was shaking his head, not pleased. He said: "Man if I thought the ITA race was going to be this hard I would have done the brakes and tuned the car....shit, I thought the SM race was going to be the tough one!"
(That was the year he WALKED the field in SM, only to later find issues with the head, that, IIRC, the builder took blame for.)

At the time, I think Bob was doing some WC races, and decided to do the ARRC ITA race at the last minute. Patullo was there, IIRC, and chated with him a bit about that.
Point being, he didn't always bring his A game.

Stretch's last race at the ARRC in the 240 was in 2004 against Serra. The brakes looked fine to me when I got the car. He took the car to a dyno in October before the ARRC. The head issue in SM was a few years later I believe.

David

[JeffYoung]

Neal is a good friend and his motor was built by Dennis Shaw (same as mine). Probably as good a build as is possible.

Neal's car makes good power but it's not the numbers I've heard quoted from other sources.

That said, he's run either 17 (maybe) or 18 (sure at least that) at VIR and that is damn good.

I still think a totally maxed out, totally maxed driven -- like the Price Miata or the Ruck Integra or the Moser CRX --240sx can win, just like any of those other cars.

[Matt93SE]

Not in IT.
It is in ST...

[JeffYoung]

I don't disagree with that.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think Ruck ran *A* 1:41 this year. I don't think he ran a bunch of them. Stretch ran consistent 1:43s in 2004 when he battled with Serra. That was before the repave. The repave supposedly shaved 2 secs off times, but that was several years ago.

So I am not sure what your point is here. It actually supports that a 1:43 from 'then' is a 1:41 'now'. So it would then be possible for Stretch's car without any further development, to be competitive. *A* 1:41 is still a 1:41.


You have said this several times. I have asked for those dyno sheets to be produced and have yet to see them. I have a dyno sheet for the motor Stretch raced in 2004. It made 144 whp and 15x tq (don't remember the exact #). Now, this was before open ECUs and before the intake track was open in front of the throttle body. An off-season project is to put in a Nistune ECU that can be programmed real time and fix-up the intake. I know Neal is running a custom built ECU based on a 16-bit Silvia ECU and whatever hp he is making is probably going to be real close to max. Based on TraqMate data I seem to be close to the Integras in top speed at the end of the back straight. I'm hitting 117/118 and Hoppe said he was hitting 119 and Hoppe was a better driver. We all seem to be down on the Miata, though.

That car made 150/150 with a Wolf. The big power was in the header. Seeing as how Bob's car was less than optimised ECU and intake-wise, I am confident that the numbers I quote and what can be done today are in line. For those of you who think your 'chipped' ECU's are optimised, you are nuts. Peak HP means diddly. Area under the curve is what it's all about, and when you can manipulate that every 200 or so RPM, you can create a real nice powerband.


Stretch's last race at the ARRC in the 240 was in 2004 against Serra. The brakes looked fine to me when I got the car. He took the car to a dyno in October before the ARRC. The head issue in SM was a few years later I believe.

David

You need to go do some research on the recount of that race. The way Jake described it was the way it was described then. I remember because I was following and cheering for our NER guy, Serra.

A 150/150 240SX is in NO WAY an underdog to the Teg/CRX/Miata. How fast is the Price Miata into 10?

On edit: The more I read the more I am convinced that most people have no clue when they are getting whooped by a DRIVER, not a car.

[Racerlinn]

Was just perusing ITB specs, daydreaming about racing something that might actually have a chance at a win...but I digress...

Came across the B13 Sentra in ITB, and I see it is classed at 2520 lbs. I'm thinking, wow that's heavy for ITB, it must make gobs of power. I look it up and, um, no, not really - 110 HP and 108 TQ. So just for comparison, I check out the '03 Golf, which makes 115 HP and 122 TQ - and is listed at 2350 lbs!

So now I'm thinking, WTF? Is the Sentra one of those cars that got missed in the great realignment, or is there something I don't know about it? Can someone shed some light here?

Thanks.

Earl, you ever raced a FWD car? Might want to take that in to consideration.
After 7 years, if I could throw pixie dust at mine and turn it into a 240SX or a Miata, I would....

[JeffYoung]

Ditto what Andy said on tuning with a stand alone. Each time we improved the tune on my car (Megaquirt 2, then MS3), we made the mid range fatter and I got faster.

Ditto on driver. Price hangs that Miata out like no one I've seen. Kevin get a ton out of the Integra, and Joe M. wails on the CRX.

[erlrich]

Earl, you ever raced a FWD car? Might want to take that in to consideration.
After 7 years, if I could throw pixie dust at mine and turn it into a 240SX or a Miata, I would....

Steve - no, I've never raced anything but a 240SX, so yeah, my perspective is pretty skewed. But then, I never said I wanted to race a Sentra...:D


On edit: The more I read the more I am convinced that most people have no clue when they are getting whooped by a DRIVER, not a car.

Andy - I can see that too, but fwiw, in my case at least, my opinion is in no way, shape, or form based on my own experience. I know my car is not 10/10ths, and I know as a driver I'm not in the same league as guys like Brian, Joe, Kevin, and you. I'm basing my opinion on what I'm seeing the best drivers, in the best cars, doing. And maybe it's just that we haven't had anyone since Bob come along with a fully prepped AND driven 240SX. But then, how do we know?

[DavidM]

So I am not sure what your point is here. It actually supports that a 1:43 from 'then' is a 1:41 'now'. So it would then be possible for Stretch's car without any further development, to be competitive. *A* 1:41 is still a 1:41.


I think a top driven/prepped 240SX today would be similar to an Integra. I'm not sure either car could beat a Miata or CRX.



That car made 150/150 with a Wolf. The big power was in the header. Seeing as how Bob's car was less than optimised ECU and intake-wise, I am confident that the numbers I quote and what can be done today are in line. For those of you who think your 'chipped' ECU's are optimised, you are nuts. Peak HP means diddly. Area under the curve is what it's all about, and when you can manipulate that every 200 or so RPM, you can create a real nice powerband.


Stretch's car made 144 whp with a JWT and it had the latest Stretch header on it (obviously). When the great re-alignment occurred the intake rules were not open and the ECU was not open. Stretch's car is always trotted out as the best prepped 240SX ever, yet it didn't make 150 whp.



You need to go do some research on the recount of that race. The way Jake described it was the way it was described then. I remember because I was following and cheering for our NER guy, Serra.


No I don't. I watched it in person. It was a good race. Stretch was racing Serra, not Ruck. His brakes were fine. He had gone to a dyno before the race to tune the motor. And his SM didn't have too much compression. Contrary to what Jake said.



A 150/150 240SX is in NO WAY an underdog to the Teg/CRX/Miata. How fast is the Price Miata into 10?


I'd love to know how fast Price was into 10. If he has data and is willing to share then that would be awesome. I haven't seen it.



On edit: The more I read the more I am convinced that most people have no clue when they are getting whooped by a DRIVER, not a car.

You sure are full of yourself.

David

[mossaidis]

I *believe* IT.com is living up to it's reputation ... once again. :014:

[Knestis]

I *believe* IT.com is living up to it's reputation ... once again. :014:

Is not, ya bum. Shaddup.

;)

K

[JeffYoung]

For what its worth, 3-4 years into racing I had gotten to the point where I thought I was driving pretty well, and my car prep was pretty good.

And I was still getting beat, handily at a lot of places. I started to think that my car had no chance against top flight RX7s, 240zs or Miatas.

But each time I actually worked hard on making an improvement to the car -- there is ALWAYS something to do -- or went to a test day I generally learned something and went faster.

Hard road this racing stuff.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think a top driven/prepped 240SX today would be similar to an Integra. I'm not sure either car could beat a Miata or CRX.

So we disagree. On paper, the 240 is a player. And it HAS the handling and brakes to get the job done.




Stretch's car made 144 whp with a JWT and it had the latest Stretch header on it (obviously). When the great re-alignment occurred the intake rules were not open and the ECU was not open. Stretch's car is always trotted out as the best prepped 240SX ever, yet it didn't make 150 whp.

With those additional allowances, do you think it can't make 150/150? I have seen it. Without a programmable ECU, none of us are 'done'. Heck, I am on my 3rd intake design, 3rd exhaust design, 2nd ignition design, and countless hours on the dyno with the Haltec.


No I don't. I watched it in person. It was a good race. Stretch was racing Serra, not Ruck. His brakes were fine. He had gone to a dyno before the race to tune the motor. And his SM didn't have too much compression. Contrary to what Jake said.

We know he raced Serra. Serra finally broke through and won one. It was indeed posted that Bob was having brake issues. And his SM was DQ'd from P1 that year for non-compliance.


I'd love to know how fast Price was into 10. If he has data and is willing to share then that would be awesome. I haven't seen it.
I'd like to know how much faster he was out of 7 than everyone else (if at all) and how that translated to the straight.




You sure are full of yourself.

David

Get over it. It's the evolution of a driver who is driven to win (read Young's post of his evolution, both mentally and mechanically). We all go through it. The comment was aimed at plenty of people here who see what they want to see and don't have the basics of speed/distance relationships yet will proudly scream from the top of the mountain that a car is an overdog. "Look he pulls him 5 lengths!!!". Yet when the braking is done he is closer than he was at the start of the straight. People will say that a 240 can never keep up yet Stretch, in 2004, runs a 1.43.7 and people tell me the track is 2 seconds faster AND he had pre-ECU and intake prep on the car. Seriously?

Sometimes we all have to admit we have to continue to climb the ladder to get what we want. The last nut-job to do his version of full-prep on a 240 was almost 8 years ago. Think of the development just in the CRX in that time-frame. To think that the 240 would be frozen in time is crazy.

I fully believe that Price is faster than me for single, balls-to-the-wall laps. But I bet over the course of a race I could make it close. If I couldn't, I would have to realize I got beat and step my game up with more development, more driver hours and no complaints. The math is all there guys. It's up to us to get better within our own little worlds.

Jeff Lawton is a great example up here. He knew what he didn't know, learned it, tried hard, spent money and reviewed his progress and had a plan to keep on building...now he is one of the best we have to offer in NER and I would put him, his program and that Saturn against anything given equal track time.

[fivedimeracer]

FWIW...I think the B13 was the best glass body Nissan ever did for small bore GT !!!...The newer 200sx and SE-R not nearly as cool....but I'm a little biased :happy204: An ITB one would be so cool to see up here in the Northeast...of course mine had a B210 motor, a Quickchange, but at least the tailights were OEM :shrug:

2159

[JeffYoung]

See also (I think this was Andy's idea as well): The Myth of the 10/10ths Build.

It doesn't exist. Why? There is ALWAYS something you can do to improve the car. Now, I'm not denying that at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in BUT you can always keep trying, changing, and doing different things to get more speed.

Intake designs, exhaust designs, shock packages, different spring rates, different bar combinations, tuning, removing allowable weight in order to ballast, wheel sizes, gearing, and so on and so on....

[Tristan Smith]

Bob had a few things going for him that made him a very successful driver in the 240sx (and in everything else he has raced).

One, he has the funds to race often, constantly upgrade and develop his equipment, and keep fresh rubber underneath his car.

He and I would chat about all the racing he was doing. Week after week he was somewhere driving something.

It's hard to beat seat time.

Especially when some years I was only getting in two race weekends for various reasons, and it showed (and frustrated the crap out of me). So I have to agree with Andy on that.

I think that my 240sx was as well prepped as his, at least intially. But he continued to develop his car, where in hindsight I got very static.

Brakes are great and the handling is really good. It's a bit heavy, but in line for the class.

But I think as the Miatas and Integras, and to some degree the CRXs (although it was always a fast car in the class) got developed more an more, the 240sxs were finding themselves farther back in the field. I would attribute that more to development stagnation with those who were driving them after Stretch left, like myself, than anything else.

Neal Harrison has pushed the development on his car and he is running up front.

He really throws his car around the track.

Stretch did too, he was one of the most aggressive drivers I saw race firsthand.

I was always too worried about scratching my nice paint jobs :D.

[JeffYoung]

You gotta see a T-Rex Racing prepared car to believe that last line. Nicer than my street cars.....

[Wreckerboy]

Come to the darrrrk siiiide....

K

...and buy a Miata?

:D

[erlrich]

...and buy a Miata?

:D

Oh, wow...and here I always thought guys bought Miatas to get in touch with their feminine side... ;)

[Knestis]

That's the dark stockings side. A very different thing.

K

[Greg Amy]

That's the dark stockings side. A very different thing. K
:happy204:

[Wreckerboy]

Touche!

[AE86ITA]

Has anyone submitted this issue to the ITAC?

[erlrich]

Has anyone submitted this issue to the ITAC?

Ummmm.... no.... I was actually waiting for the the ITAC/CRB to announce they were going to quit using the 30% multiplier ;)

...and if you believe that....

[ramoncito89]

Hello everyone

It has been a long time since my last visit to IT forums and I have been racing a ga16de for a while now in my case I was allowed to compete in ITA class with 2250 weight rule since we dint have a any other car in the field that falls under the criteria of the SCCA ITB Class but now we are starting to see more new comers that actually belonged to ITB but were still allowed to race under ITA class for quorum purposes however the local directors have decided to open the ITB class since the field is growing and is allowing every class to have a fare share of cars as per SCCA standards in my case I can choose for 2013 season to stay in ITA with the SR20DE engine transmition currently sitting in my garage or to try luck in ITB with my actual 1.6 GA16DE and last time I looked the rule book it mentions that the little GA in the B13 chassis has to weight more than 2500 pounds! This has to be a mistake with just 110 HP since there are other cars with the same or more power that has less weight handicap.

The GA16 is a great bulletproof engine but it has no ICE CREAM CONE CHANCE IN HELL with so much weight and as it is right know I rather go to ITA and have a competitive car and one of the reasons I’m leaving the ITB dream is the weight that has been imposed on the car I think SCCA can do something about that since the B13 chassis is a cheap easy to find parts car that fits within the purpose of low cost ITB purpose/criteria.

[erlrich]

Hello everyone

It has been a long time since my last visit to IT forums and I have been racing a ga16de for a while now in my case I was allowed to compete in ITA class with 2250 weight rule since we dint have a any other car in the field that falls under the criteria of the SCCA ITB Class but now we are starting to see more new comers that actually belonged to ITB but were still allowed to race under ITA class for quorum purposes however the local directors have decided to open the ITB class since the field is growing and is allowing every class to have a fare share of cars as per SCCA standards in my case I can choose for 2013 season to stay in ITA with the SR20DE engine transmition currently sitting in my garage or to try luck in ITB with my actual 1.6 GA16DE and last time I looked the rule book it mentions that the little GA in the B13 chassis has to weight more than 2500 pounds! This has to be a mistake with just 110 HP since there are other cars with the same or more power that has less weight handicap.

The GA16 is a great bulletproof engine but it has no ICE CREAM CONE CHANCE IN HELL with so much weight and as it is right know I rather go to ITA and have a competitive car and one of the reasons I’m leaving the ITB dream is the weight that has been imposed on the car I think SCCA can do something about that since the B13 chassis is a cheap easy to find parts car that fits within the purpose of low cost ITB purpose/criteria.

And thus the original point of the thread. The ITAC/CRB aren't going to adjust anything without a member request. Write the CRB and request the weight be adjusted; it sounds like there is an excellent chance it would be.

[Chip42]

Ummmm.... no.... I was actually waiting for the the ITAC/CRB to announce they were going to quit using the 30% multiplier ;)

...and if you believe that....

Check the october fastrack, we (ITAC) removed the 30% min rule in ITB.

So the sentra "should" be 2290 in B (25%) or 2385 (30%) unless there's data I don't know about. Id default to 2290 myself but even 2385 is a break from current classing.

[Spinnetti]

Has anyone submitted this issue to the ITAC?

Sounds like you volunteer! I'll sign on with you if you like...

[AE86ITA]

Are all the weight tables for ITB be corrected in the 2013 GCR Book? Or must each car be requested to be reviewed separately?

[ShelbyRacer]

At this point, ITB is being reviewed. Currently, no changes can be promised. The data itself is still being collected. It will not be ready within the next few months. Currently, we have no ETA, and even once the data is all run, we need to make recommendations to the CRB, and they have to approve said recommendations.

I cannot promise anything at this point. At the same time, I'm not sure a specific request would speed the process for a single car either. I'd submit it. Worst you can get is a "we're working on it" response (well, worse would be... well, you know).

[Chip42]

and if you can supply technical information to help fill our shelves, we appreciate it. even if it's just information on the mechanicals and nothing about output potential and all that.

but yeah - what Matt said.

[AE86ITA]

As far as I understand the new rule only affects DOHC engines. Can anyone share with us what the new formula be?
To have an example lets use the 1985-87 Toyota Corolla GTS
1.6L
DOHC
112hp
RWD

[ShelbyRacer]

There is no "new" formula. The only change in the process has been to remove the "default to 30% for multivalve cars in ITB/C" and return those cars to the standard process of 25% when they are reprocessed or newly classified. The same overrides can be made if a 75% majority of the committee feels that there is a need to alter the process for a particular architecture.

So according to the info you've given:

112hp x 1.25 (25% default multiplier) = 140 (anticipated "process" crank hp in IT trim)
140 x 17 (lb/hp multiplier for all ITB ) = 2380 lb. (weight prior to adders/subtractors)

It appears the car is classified correctly at 2380 in the current GCR.

The FX-16 FWD version also gets a 2% subtractor for FWD (part of the process), which equals 2332.4, which rounds down to 2330 (nearest 5). It also appears correct.

Another factor is in play here, however. Last month, the CRB approved a weight reduction for the MR2, based on a recommendation made by the ITAC. This reduction centered around evidence that the 4A-GE engine did not respond ideally to IT modifications. This was supported with loads of technical evidence from the MR2 community. This evidence was reviewed by the ITAC, which, after MUCH discussion and further gathering of information, determined that an adjustment to the default multiplier would compensate for the documented discrepancy. After a confidence vote, the ITAC recommendation was forwarded with all supporting information to the CRB (as a side note, CRB liasons monitored the ITAC discussions, so more than just basic technical background was available to the CRB ). The CRB reviewed the recommendation and supporting information, and decided to approve a weight based on a 20% multiplier, yeilding the weight that is currently listed.

The issue is this, and as of this point is not yet resolved. This reduction was based on the 4A-GE engine, which is also in the Corolla GTS and the FX-16 in ITB. I believe the same powerplant is in one or two ITA cars as well, correct?

At this point, this is part of a larger issue of inconsistency in ITB. Any oversight in this situation was certainly not intentional. The large issue itself raises a lot of questions, and will be one that the ITAC will be spending lot of time on to determine the best course of action.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not having looked at the FT, I would have expected both the GTS and FX-16 to have been changed using the same multiplier as the MR2.

I do not believe that the powerplant is used in anything in ITA. IIRC, the 101hp 12A, the 108hp Si's and the 116hp 1.6 Miata are the lowest HP's in ITA.

[AE86ITA]

There is no "new" formula. The only change in the process has been to remove the "default to 30% for multivalve cars in ITB/C" and return those cars to the standard process of 25% when they are reprocessed or newly classified. The same overrides can be made if a 75% majority of the committee feels that there is a need to alter the process for a particular architecture.

So according to the info you've given:

112hp x 1.25 (25% default multiplier) = 140 (anticipated "process" crank hp in IT trim)
140 x 17 (lb/hp multiplier for all ITB ) = 2380 lb. (weight prior to adders/subtractors)

It appears the car is classified correctly at 2380 in the current GCR.

The FX-16 FWD version also gets a 2% subtractor for FWD (part of the process), which equals 2332.4, which rounds down to 2330 (nearest 5). It also appears correct.

Another factor is in play here, however. Last month, the CRB approved a weight reduction for the MR2, based on a recommendation made by the ITAC. This reduction centered around evidence that the 4A-GE engine did not respond ideally to IT modifications. This was supported with loads of technical evidence from the MR2 community. This evidence was reviewed by the ITAC, which, after MUCH discussion and further gathering of information, determined that an adjustment to the default multiplier would compensate for the documented discrepancy. After a confidence vote, the ITAC recommendation was forwarded with all supporting information to the CRB (as a side note, CRB liasons monitored the ITAC discussions, so more than just basic technical background was available to the CRB ). The CRB reviewed the recommendation and supporting information, and decided to approve a weight based on a 20% multiplier, yeilding the weight that is currently listed.

The issue is this, and as of this point is not yet resolved. This reduction was based on the 4A-GE engine, which is also in the Corolla GTS and the FX-16 in ITB. I believe the same powerplant is in one or two ITA cars as well, correct?

At this point, this is part of a larger issue of inconsistency in ITB. Any oversight in this situation was certainly not intentional. The large issue itself raises a lot of questions, and will be one that the ITAC will be spending lot of time on to determine the best course of action.


Thanks ShelbyRacer;
Not to keep banging the same drum, but could you also do the math for the 1985-87 Toyota Corolla SR5
1.6L
SOHC
70hp
RWD


Thanks,

[Chip42]

The math goes hp*multiplier*class weight number and modifiers where appropriate.

For ITB the class weight # is 17. USDM 4A-C engines were rated at 90hp, not 70 as in your post.

90*1.25*17=1912.5 rounds to 1915

[AE86ITA]

Could someone let us know the different formulas for all IT categories including platforms(FWD, RWD, AWD, Mid engine, etc)?

[erlrich]

Could someone let us know the different formulas for all IT categories including platforms(FWD, RWD, AWD, Mid engine, etc)?

From the ITAC manual:


The power-to-weight ratio targets for each class are as follows:
ITR: 11.25 lbs/hp
ITS: 12.9 lbs/hp
ITA: 14.5 lbs/hp
ITB: 17 lbs/hp
ITC: 18.84 lbs/hp
The horsepower used for the calculation is the most complicated part of the process. It can be determined by one of two methods: "published horsepower" or "known horsepower."
and:


Then, adders and subtractors are applied. They are as follows:

FWD cars get a percentage-based subtractor: 6% for ITR, 5.5% for ITS, 2% for ITA and ITB, and 0% for ITC. Note that AWD cars should not get this adjustment.
Cars with double-wishbone suspension get a 50 lb. adder.
ITR cars with both FWD and front struts get -50 lb.
Live axle RWD cars in ITR get -50 lb.
Mid-engined (engine between driver and rear axle) cars get +50 lb.
Cars with abnormally small or large brakes for their class get -50 lb. or +50 lb.
Cars with excessively low or high engine displacements, or excessively high or low peak torque, can be adjusted up to the following limits. (For example, a very-high-displacement, very-high-torque car would get a max of +50 in ITB ). These are maximums, and this adder is not absolute. The ITAC should use its judgment about whether or not these cars are likely to accelerate slower or faster than an "average" car for the class. Note that rotaries should be considered small displacement engines.
Class Normal displacement range (liters) Large displacement / high torque Small displacement / low torque
ITR 2.2 - 3.8 +150 lbs -100 lbs
ITS 2.1 - 2.9 +100 lbs -50 lbs
ITA 1.5 - 2.5 +100 lbs -50 lbs
ITB 1.7 - 2.3 +50 lbs -0 lbs
ITC 1.5 - 1.7 +50 lbs -0 lbs

[ShelbyRacer]

I do not believe that the powerplant is used in anything in ITA. IIRC, the 101hp 12A, the 108hp Si's and the 116hp 1.6 Miata are the lowest HP's in ITA.

I was thinking the 88-92 Corolla GTS (FWD AE92? style), but that would've been 88-89. I *think* the 90-92 got the non-TVIS uprated version (something like 130-some hp).

[ShelbyRacer]

Could someone let us know the different formulas for all IT categories including platforms(FWD, RWD, AWD, Mid engine, etc)?

What Earl said, plus the default HP multiplier is 1.25 (25% gain over stock).

A few years ago, this entire process was made available to the membership. It's in a link called the ITAC Operation Manual in a sticky at the top of this (Rules and Regs) forum. Here's a link to it as well. (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29531)

[Chip42]

please note that the link above does not contain the updates posted in the fastrack. the updated document should be on the website soon.

[AE86ITA]

Not having looked at the FT, I would have expected both the GTS and FX-16 to have been changed using the same multiplier as the MR2.

I do not believe that the powerplant is used in anything in ITA. IIRC, the 101hp 12A, the 108hp Si's and the 116hp 1.6 Miata are the lowest HP's in ITA.

In the last Fastrack someone suggested that all 4AG powered cars be adjusted as per MR2. The response was to read letter(technical bulletin) #6953. Can someone explain if it will be done or someone must start the same process all over again for all 4AG powered cars(excluding the MR2)?


Thanks,

[Chip42]

In the last Fastrack someone suggested that all 4AG powered cars be adjusted as per MR2. The response was to read letter(technical bulletin) #6953. Can someone explain if it will be done or someone must start the same process all over again for all 4AG powered cars(excluding the MR2)?


Thanks,

write a letter, it can't hurt, though I do intend to address it ASAP.

[AE86ITA]

To all Sentra GA16DE powered cars, this weight adjustment apparently will give you guy an "Icecream Cone Chance in Hell" after all. Also if there are enough of you interested the guys of Team-M-Factory will build a Final Drive for you that can actually make all worth.

[AE86ITA]

Calling on all Sentra B13 YOUR WAIT IS OVER, GET YOUR CARS READY A GET TO THE TRACK ASAP

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/TB%2014-02.pdf