Hello, I heard from a friend that the 86-89 Corolla was just recently reclassed from ITA to ITB. Can someone confirm this if possible?
Thanks alot,
Mark M.
Printable View
Hello, I heard from a friend that the 86-89 Corolla was just recently reclassed from ITA to ITB. Can someone confirm this if possible?
Thanks alot,
Mark M.
It's just the front-drive '87 FX16. The 86-89 Corolla GTS is still stuck in ITA purgatory.
I have all the classings on my site, and I have filters so you can see classings for all Toyotas for instance.
www.racerjake.com
Thanks for the quick reply Jake, I thought it was to good to be true.
FWIW - I think the FX16 would make a very solid B car. It's relatively heavy, but if you hang the right parts on it, it should be quick. Same engine as the ITA GTS and MR-2 (in fact same drivetrain as the MR2 - just stuck in the "wrong" end of the car). The only downside might be that the brakes are a tad small.
Do you guys know anyone who runs a FX16?
That WOULD be a cool B car. I didn't know that it had been moved when I saw one a week or so ago, abandoned on I40 between Greensboro and Durham, NC...
K
How about a proposal/petition to move all 4AGE Toyota to ITB @ 2450lbs? Who's with me?
Gimme some stock HP to work with...and a drivetrain layout...and a suspension design (ie: MCPH struts etc..)
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
All had ~112HP, stock. 1587cc DOHC, 16-valve, Bosch L-jetronic.
All except the AE86 Corolla (front engine, rear drive) were all-strut. AE86 had a coil spring rear w/IRS.
All the other Corolla's were FWD. The MR2 is mid engine, RWD.
The NUMMI-made first cousin, the '90 Geo Prizm GSi, is already in B. It is the same chassis as the '88 and later Corolla GTS - except it is a 4-door. It also has the later small-port head, which had ~130HP from the factory.
------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry
A resonable request I would estimate...
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Quote:
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
A resonable request I would estimate...
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
AB
I'm not trying to start anything Andy, really. But, when has the 'reasonableness' of a request had anything to do w/ anything? I'll have to go back through back FasTracks, but I thought the request to move the AW11 MR2 and the AE86 Corolla were already shot down? People have been trying to get the AW11 MR2 moved since the mid/late 90's.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Yes, and there used to be 2 of them in CenDiv, both of which were well prepped and FAST. Off the top of my head if you give that thing larger ports it might be a little much. Getting the weight right the first time would be the trick.Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The NUMMI-made first cousin, the '90 Geo Prizm GSi, is already in B. It is the same chassis as the '88 and later Corolla GTS - except it is a 4-door. It also has the later small-port head, which had ~130HP from the factory.</font>
Dick Cole from Detroit had a really nice looking red one, don't know where it is now.
Bill,
I guess I didn't realize we were talking about the MR2. I was talking about the Corolla with the aforementioned specs.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Andy,
Jake had mentioned moving all the 4AGE Toyotas to ITB, and Norm gave specs on both the Corolla and MR2. I guess that's why I thought we were talking about both cars. Like I said, I'm really not trying to start anything. I'd love to see a more objective process that would eliminate the need to even ask questions as to why one configuration is in one class, and another is in a different class.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Bill's right. But I've seen many previously shot down requests go through recently. Heck, Greg's Nissan was shot down several times before it moved to ITA. There was a serious push to move the MR2/AE86, but that was well before PCA.
Norm - If I'm not mistaken, Peter has a built-to-the-letter-of-the-IT-law 4AGE with Dyno results. This may prove valuable background info.
No issues...a question is a question.
The FWD cars seem to me to be ITB material. The MR2 met with a split ITAC vote and was not recomended. The combination of RWD and mid-engine (GREAT under breaking) make it a tweener for B.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Well, if mid-engined cars are that wonderful, how come there isn't a single competitive mid-engined IT car in the country and the CB just moved the 914's down a class? Plus, the 4AGE's resistance to power gains more than compensates for the brakes. In either case, the Corolla GTS is front engined, and should be considered for ITB. For the sake of argument, just look at the cars that were recently moved from ITA to ITB:
Volkswagon Golf III (93-97)....2350lbs 115hp 2.0L
Nissan Sentra Non-SER (91-94)..2250lbs 110hp 1.8L
Honda Accord Lxi (86-88).......2550lbs 120hp 2.0L
Toyota FX16(87)................2445lbs 112hp 1.6L
Honda Prelude Si(87)...........2450lbs 110hp 2.0L
Honda Civic Si (86-87).........2040lbs 91hp 1.6L
Porsche 924 (77-82)............2600lbs 115hp 2.0L
Porsche 914-4 (73-76)..........2230lbs 95hp 2.0L
And compare that to the ITA 4AGE's:
Toyota MR2 (85-87).............2370lbs 112hp 1.6L
Toyota Corolla GTS (86-89).....2410lbs 112hp 1.6L
This looks like a no-brainer to me.
Never said they were all that wonderful...just said there is a split on the ITAC as to the viablility for B. I would say it is a tweener for sure...
Would you be happy with 2550+ lbs in ITB?
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
IMHO, it would do better in ITB at 2550 than ITA at 2370 - but that would be a lot of weight to carry. You mentioned the split ITAC decision - for those who favored the move - what kind of weight did they propose?
I did think about the Corolla.
I think they should all be in ITB along with the first gen Integra. The fields need to be larger and there are plenty of donor cars running around for aspiring racers to get started cheap...of course there will be many people complaining that their cars are no longer competitive with new cars to the class, but thats racing...nothing good lasts forever...a car you ran 5 to 10 years ago shouldnt be expected to be extremely competitive unless very well sorted and well driven. I think that is the nature of the sport. I dont expect my second gen integra to be competitive 5 years from now just as the 2nd gen CRX is starting to get left behind on the pointy end of the field...
------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra
[This message has been edited by zracre (edited June 08, 2005).]
I think the CB/ITAC makes too much about FWD/RWD. With cars with such little power and so much grip, RWD is not really much of an advantage.
How much "weight" do you think we put on it?
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
It's a factor, but not huge. But in a class made up of predominantly FWD, when you add RWD and mid-engine, you get an animal that must be considered VERY closly before you let it free in the ITB woods.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
OK, it's late, I must be tired...but is the Integra you refer to the same one that won the ARRCs last year???Quote:
Originally posted by zracre:
I think they should all be in ITB along with the first gen Integra. The fields need to be larger and there are plenty of donor cars running around for aspiring racers to get started cheap...of course there will be many people complaining that their cars are no longer competitive with new cars to the class, but thats racing...nothing good lasts forever...a car you ran 5 to 10 years ago shouldnt be expected to be extremely competitive unless very well sorted and well driven. I think that is the nature of the sport. I dont expect my second gen integra to be competitive 5 years from now just as the 2nd gen CRX is starting to get left behind on the pointy end of the field...
And the CRX...is that the same one that was top 5?
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Peter's engine is the twin of mine, and from the same builder - so, yes, that would be valuable.Quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
If I'm not mistaken, Peter has a built-to-the-letter-of-the-IT-law 4AGE with Dyno results. This may prove valuable background info.
The only other major difference between our cars is my suspension is more updated (and a whole lot more $$). http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
2550#? I'd have to carry about 250# of ballast.
------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry
Im talking about the 1.6 cars (first gen ZC) not the one I drive (B18A) http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif... and yes the CRX is still brutally fast in ITA but there are now faster cars in ITA that are going to push the CRX back.
------------------
Evan Darling
ITA Integra
Jake,
Let's talk about car prep. Can you outline for us how well developed your car is? The reason I ask this is because when I compare your (ITA) times at Lime Rock this past weekend and the top ITB times, your fast lap would have been a 1/2 second faster than the ITB winner...and equal to the perrennial front running Volvo that came in second.
Anything else left in the #28? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
While it looks to be a B car on paper (as does the Gen 1 RX-7) we have to be careful of wrecking the competitive balance in a class...as you know.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Yeah, I ran well this last weekend besting my own personal best. I've done a lot of tweaking with the suspension, and I was running Auto-x tires at that race - so I'm not sure how consistantly I was running those times towards the end of the race. But I did get a few laps around the track drafting an SE-R early in the race.
I'm glad you noticed! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
Norm's really built a fully developed car - mine's not. I haven't worked on the engine - but you can't get a whole lot of the 4AGE's. Maybe one of these days Norm will drag his car up to Lime Rock so I can see if it could get anywhere near those pesky integras!
Let's put it this way, I watch the cars I like that I think would be THE cars to have...should they move...call it window shopping...Quote:
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
It's just the front-drive '87 FX16. The 86-89 Corolla GTS is still stuck in ITA purgatory.
You mean where I live? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif (1985 Corolla GT-S IT/A)
Well, reading through everything, here's my take as a current Corolla Driver (if anybody cares).
> I have raced a 85 GT-S since 1993.
> The car is minimum weight and prepped to the limit in all areas.
I think I'm the only one left in Cen-div (and haven't run the last few years) simply because for most folks its just not worth being last. I've run much faster than any other Corolla that has tried, and I can't run front of the pack anymore either. I've done well with it for a long time (regular top 5 through most of the 90's), but it is simply outclassed, and has been for a number of years, just like the MR2 (Of which I have had several). Its time to move it.
However: I think I'd rather run at the top of mid-pack in IT/A than at the same spot in IT/B because it now is carrying too much weight and eating brakes! The best B cars in Cen-div are just as fast as the Best Corollas in A as it stands already. There are also not a lot of them left, so its not like everybody would mob the class with them.
BTW, the AE86 is NOT IRS. Its standard solid axle.
I'm sure my car will end up as a drift car or in vintage before SCCA ever does anything!
Sorry for all the Off Topic stuff, but this is a little amusing.
In the listing for the Corolla GT-S, its 84-85 (in Jakes list anyway), but should be 85-87. Reason for this is a certain somebody went to race the first one in IT/A, but it didn't actually exist as an 84 (was an 85 model year) in the US, so wasn't actually eligable.. Other than minor stuff, 85-7 are the same, then it went FWD in 88...
As an ITB guy, I think that the entire family of 1.6 twincam Toyotas would be a good addition to the class. I agree that the FWD/RWD distinction is not much of a factor down here in 120hp land.
K
You got 120hp??? And I bet your torque is killer too!Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
As an ITB guy,...... I agree that the FWD/RWD distinction is not much of a factor down here in 120hp land.
K
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
LOL - The Jake's with 1.6 and 1.3 liters aspire to the displacement of a 2-liter bottle of cola. Thanks for chiming in Kirk - too bad the IT2 think didn't happen - probably would have solved this stuff quicker.
And yes - making us weeney 112hp cars run with much over 2500lbs would make us mid-pack ITB cars that now chew up tires and brakes - probably not an improvement.
BTW - a few of us were talking about the Hummer H3 - amazed at how GM thinks 220hp is sufficient to cart around 4750lbs. What a pig! Trying to brainstorm ANY other vehicle with that poor of a power to weight ratio, we could only think of one - My MR2 http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif
No way. I was just making a generalization about the median kind of ITB power.Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911:
You got 120hp??? ...
Interesting thing about the 2.0 Golf - I finally saw a dyno sheet (for a stock engine, like mine) and was a little surprised that peak power happened all the way down at 5200-5400rpm. Torque peaked at about 4000.
YMMV but wheel HP was around 100, with 109 ft-lbs of torque. That compares with the factory's stated numbers of 112 and 122.
I'm actually going to do a pull on mine to baseline it before Cameron starts building an IT engine this summer and I'll share what we learn.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 17, 2005).]
Well, not many "street" cars truely pull very well above 6,000 rpm. The factorys put cams in them to be useful in the rpm range where we normally use them for their intended purpose, the street. Just because you pull it onto a race track doesn't mean that it will now "pull strong to 7 grand". Well, at least not with the stock componants in place. If you keep your ears open it is pretty easy to pick out the ones that do.
Kirk, interesting...I'd KILL for 100 and NINE lb ft of tq! LOLQuote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
No way. I was just making a generalization about the median kind of ITB power.
Interesting thing about the 2.0 Golf - I finally saw a dyno sheet (for a stock engine, like mine) and was a little surprised that peak power happened all the way down at 5200-5400rpm. Torque peaked at about 4000.
YMMV but wheel HP was around 100, with 109 ft-lbs of torque. That compares with the factory's stated numbers of 112 and 122.
I'm actually going to do a pull on mine to baseline it before Cameron starts building an IT engine this summer and I'll share what we learn.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 17, 2005).]
What is the conventional wisdom on the output of your motor in a top notch build?
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
...sorry, watching F1 qualifying, and was distracted...dbl post!
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 18, 2005).]