ITS Camaro

[DSeefeldt]

I see the 1993 - 1995 Camaro 3.4 V6 has been classified in ITS. The base size wheel for this car was 16x8. So, according to the rules, one could not use the stock size wheels. Is this correct?

Thanks,

Darryl

[chuck baader]

It could use the stock wheels only if there was an exception on the spec line.

[Ron Earp]

Max wheels size is listed at 16" in the GCR. The problem will be the lack of accessible race rubber for 16" wheels.

I think I wrote the letter to have that car classed in ITS after speaking with a V6 domestic specialist some years ago. I think the car could do well in ITS. We're doing relatively well with the ITS V6 Mustang and the Camaro has some inherent advantages with respect to F/R weight distribution. The cars can handle and I believe with 3.4L of displacement it'll make all the power needed for ITS.

The 3.4L V6 for those years was rated at 160hp and 200 tq, so the car receives a more realistic weight in ITS in comparison to the 150hp Mustang. 2680 lbs probably isn't obtainable, but neither is the Mustang's 2470 lbs. The Camaro does have rear drums which sort of stinks from a maintenance standpoint, but I bet they'll stop the car just fine.

[DSeefeldt]

Ron:

I think the 3.4 V6 Camaro could do OK as we'll. I'm trying to sort out the wheel rule. The car came stock with 16x8 alluminum salad shooter wheels. So if I show up with these 16x8 salad shooter wheels, am I illegal?

Thanks,

Darryl

[Ron Earp]

I think you're legal. The ITCS line for the ITS Camaro allows them.

[Greg Amy]

...if I show up with these 16x8 salad shooter wheels, am I illegal?


I think you're legal. The ITCS line for the ITS Camaro allows them.

Largest wheel width allowed in ITS is 7". These wheels would not be compliant to the regs.

- GA

[Ron Earp]

Opps I ignored the width part. ...

[lawtonglenn]

"A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths."

Steven Wright

[Ron Earp]

I remember some time ago when I was scanning the web for information on the 3.4L V6 that I ran across some essentially stock dynojet runs. ~140 rwhp is what I remember, with a cone filter and cat back exhaust. That's pretty impressive for a starting point, albeit I haven't performed any more research on the engine. The 3.4L is pretty well hated by Camaro fans, and justifiably so with many cheap variants of GM V8s to bolt in or if you must use a V6, the higher performance 3.8L V6.

[DSeefeldt]

Ron:

Back in the mid 80's to early 90' I raced a 2.6L V6 Capri out here in the San Francisco Region. Folks said there was no way that car could beat an RX 3 let alone win a race. We accomplished both in 20+ ITA fields at the time. We met the challenge with a legal car. I guess that's what intrigues me with the 3.4 V6 Camaro. Can it be done successfully? That's the question.

Darryl

[Ron Earp]

Well, we just did a similar thing with the ITS Mustangs. The Camaro is essentially the same car, so I think you could make it into an ITS contender.

[JeffYoung]

I'm starting to look at a new car, and if I stay in IT it will be ITS.

I looked at the Camaro at length when we were voting on classification. Has smaller frontal area than the Moostang, and probably better basic suspension geometry. Stock power output is good but you will need to make around 60 more to be competitive in ITS which may or may not be an issue with this motor. Tuning was not aggressive, and the earlier cars (93s) had a less restrictive intake tract.

Rear drums are an annoyance.

I think it will handle and stop. I also think it can make the power but there is no guarantee.

[Ron Earp]

Get you a mullet and a Bitching Camaro! I'd help build one of those. The front suspension is, if the diagram I have is correct, quite a bit different from the Mustang. The rear has a panhard setup as stock and it can certainly be improved upon for adjustability. The 3.4L is a bit of an unknown though and knowledge is thin on the ground. At least it is a proper 60 degree V6 though.

[lateapex911]

Ron:

Back in the mid 80's to early 90' I raced a 2.6L V6 Capri out here in the San Francisco Region. Folks said there was no way that car could beat an RX 3 let alone win a race. We accomplished both in 20+ ITA fields at the time. We met the challenge with a legal car. I guess that's what intrigues me with the 3.4 V6 Camaro. Can it be done successfully? That's the question.

Darryl

I remember that car. Yes, there were some great ITA fields and good racing back then!

[DSeefeldt]

Ron:

I know the suspension pretty well on 3rd and 4th Gen Camaros from my A-Sedan experience. I think the car could hunt. I have the car. We'll see.

Darryl

[erlrich]

Guess I'll have to be the dissenting vote on this. IT is a power/weight class, and IMO if you can't get reasonably close to the listed weight you aren't going to be competitive against the top cars in the class. The 4th gen Camaro is going to have a tough time getting under 3,000 lbs in IT trim, much less 2680 (or even 2815 in ITR). If you just want to beat up on your local IT crew, then yeah, maybe. Our ITS cars here in the DC Region just barely outrun our top ITA cars. But in a strong ITS region (like the SE), or at the ARRC, fuggetaboutit. This is why my '02 is now a track day toy and not an ITR car.

And yeah, sucks about not being able to use the stock wheels. I actually sent a request in a couple of years ago to get that allowance in, but it was shot down.

[Ron Earp]

. The 4th gen Camaro is going to have a tough time getting under 3,000 lbs in IT trim,

I'd like to buy one of these things and try. I'm not a Chevy guy at all, but it'd be interesting to see what could be done with one.

Aw snap, $750 for one in my town and on sale too!! "Must go buy this Sunday"

http://raleigh.craigslist.org/cto/4065302668.html

I bet $400 cold cash gets me a bitching Camaro. Put it on the lift, get some beer, call the boys and take that thing apart.

[JeffYoung]

Guess I'll have to be the dissenting vote on this. IT is a power/weight class, and IMO if you can't get reasonably close to the listed weight you aren't going to be competitive against the top cars in the class. The 4th gen Camaro is going to have a tough time getting under 3,000 lbs in IT trim, much less 2680 (or even 2815 in ITR). If you just want to beat up on your local IT crew, then yeah, maybe. Our ITS cars here in the DC Region just barely outrun our top ITA cars. But in a strong ITS region (like the SE), or at the ARRC, fuggetaboutit. This is why my '02 is now a track day toy and not an ITR car.

And yeah, sucks about not being able to use the stock wheels. I actually sent a request in a couple of years ago to get that allowance in, but it was shot down.

The listed weight is based on stock hp remember, and 25% gain

If you see some of the gains with teh 3.4 that other large displacement ITS motors have seen (i.e. 40-50% or perhaps even more) then you are good to go because either you are competitive at the higher than listed weight, or the listed weight gets moved up if the ITAC gets asked to reweigh the car based on known power.

So the kicker here is the 3.4. If it can make 195-200 whp at 2700-2800 lbs, it will be competitive. Over that, gravy.

[quadzjr]

Will the ITAC adjust a car if it has known hp above or below the classed percentage without a request?

[Chip42]

it happens, but usually a letter gets written by a member of the AC/CRB so we have somethign to respond to. the new system is pretty rigid like that.

and yeah, per hp/weight, the mustang does well against real, strong ITS fields and after a very short development time (granted, an intense one) from only 1 shop and it's overweight. one of the secrets is a power band you could eat off of. its vast and flat. yeah, it might not peak at the higher hp/weight in the class, but it can scoot off all the midrange stuff and get to it's top speed faster, meaning more time at high speed, and thus lower lap times. torque is your friend, and it's pretty well linked to displacement though there is by no means a fixed tq/displacement ratio.

[Knestis]

I'd like to buy one of these things and try. I'm not a Chevy guy at all, but it'd be interesting to see what could be done with one.

Aw snap, $750 for one in my town and on sale too!! "Must go buy this Sunday"

http://raleigh.craigslist.org/cto/4065302668.html

I bet $400 cold cash gets me a bitching Camaro. Put it on the lift, get some beer, call the boys and take that thing apart.

"... The reason why I'm selling it is that I want to buy a honda."

Probably going to ITB. :happy204:

K

[joeg]

I don't know...he's got to look at the cat.

[erlrich]

The listed weight is based on stock hp remember, and 25% gain

If you see some of the gains with the 3.4 that other large displacement ITS motors have seen (i.e. 40-50% or perhaps even more) then you are good to go because either you are competitive at the higher than listed weight, or the listed weight gets moved up if the ITAC gets asked to reweigh the car based on known power.

So the kicker here is the 3.4. If it can make 195-200 whp at 2700-2800 lbs, it will be competitive. Over that, gravy.
This would/could be the saving grace for either the 3.4 or 3.8. Since it doesn't impact the street legality I am still working to see what kind of power the 3.8L motor will make.

Which begs the question, is there a generally accepted estimate for how much of the 25% expected IT gains come from bolt-ons & tuning, versus extensive motor work (b&b, bore, comp bump)? I've always had the impression you could get more the half of the expected gains from just intake/headers/exhaust/tuning, but I have no data to back that up.

[Ron Earp]

Finding a 3.4L BitchingMaro with a five speed and sans T-tops isn't as easy as I thought. That is to say, I thought it'd be done in three or four minutes, but that was an underestimation on my part.



Which begs the question, is there a generally accepted estimate for how much of the 25% expected IT gains come from bolt-ons & tuning, versus extensive motor work (b&b, bore, comp bump)? I've always had the impression you could get more the half of the expected gains from just intake/headers/exhaust/tuning, but I have no data to back that up.

I do not think an estimation could be made. Since IT is relatively restrictive you must take advantage of every aspect of the rule set. All the "little things" sum up to create meaningful gains. And, your "bolts ons" have to be critically evaluated. The "bolt on" headers that exist for domestic V6 engines (most any engine for that matter) will not be ideal for your IT-build. Time and money must be spent on optimizing an exhaust system. And there are many aspects of the engine that follow this pattern. Given that it is a odd-ball engine in the GM lineup don't expect much information to be available and go into it knowing you will have to perform most of your R&D on your own. That's part of the fun though.

And as fun as that is, we've seen more performance gains in the Mustang from chassis tuning and development. The motor's midrange is great, that doesn't hurt at all, but our recent work has been focused on being able to apply throttle early out of corners and it is starting to pay off. I bet the Camaro could be even better in this department because it appears that the weight distribution will be better out of the box than the stang.

[JeffYoung]

This would/could be the saving grace for either the 3.4 or 3.8. Since it doesn't impact the street legality I am still working to see what kind of power the 3.8L motor will make.

Which begs the question, is there a generally accepted estimate for how much of the 25% expected IT gains come from bolt-ons & tuning, versus extensive motor work (b&b, bore, comp bump)? I've always had the impression you could get more the half of the expected gains from just intake/headers/exhaust/tuning, but I have no data to back that up.

And I don't think there is any. My experience with ITS motors is with the Mustang, the L series Datsun motors, and mine, and to a lesser extent the 1.8 Miata.

Each saw different gains in different areas. The Mustangs see huge gains from tuning as the factory timing and fuel curves are pitiful, my car needed the short runner FI intake and a good exhaust to make any power, the L motors see big gains on the xhaust side, and Miatas need to rev to make power.

You won't really know until you dig into it.

HOwever, the 3.8 GM motor (that's the Buick V6 right?) is a pretty well known quantity. I'd think you should be able to get a rough estimate of what it will make in IT trim.

I was able to do so with the Rover V8 as was Ron with the Mustang, which is why I made the decision to invest in an FI motor and why Ron built the Mustang.

[DSeefeldt]

Ron:

Here is your Camaro. The situation is it's here in Sacramento, CA.

http://sacramento.craigslist.org/cto/4117658568.html

Darryl

[Ron Earp]

That one would be a good starting place. But building it from NC would be a hassle. I'm not coming up with any locally that are worth a damn.

[Ron Earp]

I can't find a Camaro.....but I found some FireChickens!

http://roanoke.craigslist.org/cto/4117800400.html

What's with all the Camaro and Firechicken owners having to sell TODAY?

http://greensboro.craigslist.org/cto/4098482591.html

[DSeefeldt]

I see the FireChicken 3.4 V6 isn't classified in ITS. Why is that?

Darryl

[Ron Earp]

Probably becAuse when I wrote the letter I didn't think to ask and the ITAC didn't consider it either.

[BullFish]

From my AS experience, the Firechicken has better aero than the Camaro... And yes, they can be made to handle.

[Chip42]

lack of the pontiac is easy to fix. just write a...

Ron put central FL on your radar, if you can find one, we'll figure a way to get it to you. I'm headed to the ARRC in a couple of weeks...

[cjb25hs]

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=29715&endYear=1995&modelCode1=CAM&showcaseOwnerId=67141683&startYear=1993&makeCode1=CHEV&engineCodes=6CLDR&engineCode=6CLDR&transmissionCode=MAN&transmissionCodes=MAN&searchRadius=300&mmt=%5BCHEV%5BCAM%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&listingId=343963745&listingIndex=1&Log=0

Here you go ron it has pimpy dodge nitro yellow green paint job and its lowered!

[Ron Earp]

206k on the clock, from Georgia, and a dayglo green paint job.

I wonder how many condom wrappers, french fries, gum wrappers, and 9mm brass one will find upon removal of the interior?

[Chip42]

sounds like a party! take bets, pass out gloves, tear into camaro. beer was made for things like this.

[JeffYoung]

That car looks good on paper, and then I look at one and I despair. What a piece of ugly ass American plastic turdmanship.

No, I do not want.

[DSeefeldt]

Jeff:

You just need to look at one in the right color done up in racing graphics. On the other hand, split pea green would sure fake out the competition.

Darryl

[erlrich]

That car looks good on paper, and then I look at one and I despair. What a piece of ugly ass American plastic turdmanship.

No, I do not want.

You just need to see one done right:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8XP3CBeOPvM/T1vjjdBa8SI/AAAAAAAAA3w/Qd72oxD7z8I/w426-h268/12%2B-%2B1

[JeffYoung]

That's pretty hot.

[erlrich]

That's pretty hot.

Yeah, now if we could just get the flares, spoiler, hood, and 18X10 wheels approved for ITR, I would build mine in a heartbeat :D

[Ron Earp]

That proves it can be a good looking race car. I think a Camaro could look good, even in ITS trim.

[lateapex911]

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=29715&endYear=1995&modelCode1=CAM&showcaseOwnerId=67141683&startYear=1993&makeCode1=CHEV&engineCodes=6CLDR&engineCode=6CLDR&transmissionCode=MAN&transmissionCodes=MAN&searchRadius=300&mmt=%5BCHEV%5BCAM%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&listingId=343963745&listingIndex=1&Log=0

Here you go ron it has pimpy dodge nitro yellow green paint job and its lowered!
The elaphantitis bump on the fenders masquerading as mirror fairing was not, looking back on it, GMs best design decision....

[Chip42]

The elaphantitis bump on the fenders masquerading as mirror fairing was not, looking back on it, GMs best design decision....

interestingly, it didn't raise any hairs in 1993. In contrast, at it's launch the aztec was roundly bashed. fast forward to 2013 and aztecs don't look all that weird anymore - hell they may have started a lot of the current design trends seen on hyundais, BMW GT/X6/etc..., and toward lighter, car based, higher utility "sport utilities." and the Camaro looks dated.

[JIgou]

interestingly, it didn't raise any hairs in 1993. In contrast, at it's launch the aztec was roundly bashed. fast forward to 2013 and aztecs don't look all that weird anymore - hell they may have started a lot of the current design trends seen on hyundais, BMW GT/X6/etc..., and toward lighter, car based, higher utility "sport utilities." and the Camaro looks dated.

So what you're saying is that you LIKE the Aztec. Hmmmmmm.....

[Chip42]

as much as I *like* the X6, which is not much. just saying that it's not nearly as ugly today. I still think the rear hatch tent, center console "cooler" and luggage area amenities like inverter AC plug and stereo controls were pretty cool, though.

[JohnW8]

What little I still remember of the 3.4L v6 is that it started life as a 2.8L v6. Think early Chevy S-10. Then, it was bored to make the "new and Improved" 3.1L v6, then got bored out again to make the "newer and more improved" 3.4L v6. The 3.4L moved over to the Camaros and Firebirds and the S-10's ended up getting a 3.8 for a base engine and a 4.3L for the "big block" Neither of which flowed very much air.

I had a 83 TransAm with t tops that was so flimsy I thought I'd twist it in half trying to go around a corner. Maybe adding a cage would've helped.

[DSeefeldt]

John:

Yes, the 3rd Gen T-Tops were very flimsy cars. The non T-top 3rd gen stiffens up real good with a good 8 pt cage. The 4th gen can be stiffened really well with the right 8 pt cage too.

Darryl

[CRallo]

206k on the clock, from Georgia, and a dayglo green paint job.

I wonder how many condom wrappers, french fries, gum wrappers, and 9mm brass one will find upon removal of the interior?



LOL!!!


I'd build one if I had the bucks...