Anyone building a 911?

Printable View

04-08-2003, 11:55 AM
garthdexter

Anyone building a 911?

I didn't start off building an IT car, but as I've been modifying my 911 it still is ITS legal. Don't know where it will end. So far:

Stripped interior, removed sound deadener, fixed rust damage and painted. Used trunk spatter paint for interior. Looks pretty good.
Repaired and replaced all suspension mounts, added stiff torsion bars (22&28), koni shocks and sway bars(22's).
Repaired fuel injection system. gone through engine to determine any problems. Need to update cam chain tensioners.
Stripped any and all unecessary items due to paint job years ago.
Replaced all rubber in the car, brake lines, hoses, and bushings.
to make IT legal - Need safety equipment, cage, seat, fire system, window net and safety switch.
Currently have 16x6 wheels. I need legal 15x7 wheels. Fuchs or cookie cutters in case anyone has them.
Probably the only other engine mods planned are an MSD ignition and headers/muffler. I'd guess maybe 170 Hp with these mods.

The intent for this car was to make a weekend driver/track day car. When it hits the track it will be relatively stock, but should go around the corners pretty well due to the suspension. Anyone else doing this? Still not sure about IT, but the only difference from my original plan is a full cage vs. a roll bar. I know it won't run with the E30's. Is this a worthwhile IT project?
04-08-2003, 12:22 PM
924Guy

Please, do a full cage, and then come play with us... you'll be kicking yourself if you don't!
http://www.924.org/GTSChallenge/

Send me an email...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
'79 924 #77 ITA
Plymouth, MI
www.vaughanscott.com
04-08-2003, 02:56 PM
[email protected]

Quote:

Originally posted by garthdexter:
I didn't start off building an IT car, but as I've been modifying my 911 it still is ITS legal. Don't know where it will end. So far:

Stripped interior, removed sound deadener, fixed rust damage and painted. Used trunk spatter paint for interior. Looks pretty good.
Repaired and replaced all suspension mounts, added stiff torsion bars (22&28), koni shocks and sway bars(22's).
Repaired fuel injection system. gone through engine to determine any problems. Need to update cam chain tensioners.
Stripped any and all unecessary items due to paint job years ago.
Replaced all rubber in the car, brake lines, hoses, and bushings.
to make IT legal - Need safety equipment, cage, seat, fire system, window net and safety switch.
Currently have 16x6 wheels. I need legal 15x7 wheels. Fuchs or cookie cutters in case anyone has them.
Probably the only other engine mods planned are an MSD ignition and headers/muffler. I'd guess maybe 170 Hp with these mods.

The intent for this car was to make a weekend driver/track day car. When it hits the track it will be relatively stock, but should go around the corners pretty well due to the suspension. Anyone else doing this? Still not sure about IT, but the only difference from my original plan is a full cage vs. a roll bar. I know it won't run with the E30's. Is this a worthwhile IT project?

Make sure it is a 68-73 911 T or E. Page 27 in IT and AS cat and specs in 2003 scca GCR. We are trying to find one.
Good luck
Case
04-08-2003, 03:08 PM
ITSRX7

Quote:

Originally posted by garthdexter:
I know it won't run with the E30's. Is this a worthwhile IT project?

If it won't run with the E30's, apples vs. apples, it shouldn't be able to run with the 240Z's or RX-7's and certainly not the E36's. You make the call if it's worthwhile. It will be one thing: DAMN COOL!

Have fun.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
04-08-2003, 03:35 PM
garthdexter

Check that, I meant E36's. The 2.2E should hang with the 240z's, and maybe RX7's. As I read the rules, I could use a 2.4 engine in this car at the same weight.
04-08-2003, 06:39 PM
madrabbit15

correct me if im wrong, but didnt the gcr only classify the 2.0? And the way in which they classed it, only the short wheelbase car is legal. the 2.4 was never classes, even though the years are there, i wish they would give the 2.4E, but nope, That car in the gcr needs some serious rules clarification, all the stuff is wrong. If all u can do is run the 2.0, u might as well run the 912 in ITS.
04-08-2003, 08:58 PM
ITSRX7

THE CB got a ton of letters asking for clarification on the 911 ITS listing. I am assuming they are getting it straight as we type.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
04-10-2003, 12:14 PM
Dave Ebersole

Considering that Porsche never built a 2.0 short wheelbase 911 T or E for US consumption, I don't think we'll see one at the track very soon. I don't know what the big delay is in correcting the specs. I wrote them when this was first proposed last fall that the specs were wrong.
Dave
O=00=O
04-10-2003, 07:06 PM
garthdexter

Found a used (ok- burnt) Kirk bolt-in cage and racing muffler today, so it's getting closer to IT spec. Looks like I'm going PCA or NASA if I get the car done soon. Not to slam the SCCA, but don't they have someone familiar with the car's spec line take a look at the specs before publishing? GCR says 2.0 liter, short wheelbase which was up to 1969, but then classified 68-73 cars. I'm sure the P-cars are not the only ones having to deal with this sort of thing.

Vaughn - found your home page -what's your email address? I have sevaral questions.
04-11-2003, 09:38 AM
924Guy

I can be reached at [email protected]

Next race date is, unfortunately, the same as the PCA race @ Mid-O, May 10-11 at Beaverun. Of course, you'll probably still be putting the car together and sorting it out... Maybe Gingerman in July? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Vaughan Scott
'79 924 #77 ITA
Plymouth, MI
www.vaughanscott.com
04-12-2003, 03:30 AM
lateapex911

Yes, I spoke with the folks who write the rules and the typo is in the engine size, I believe. So, the car of choice should be the '73 E. It should do a lot of things right, but cranking out mongo hp isn't too likely, as there isn't a lot of room to make improvememts.

Whether it can run with the big dog remains to be seen, but I would want to see at least 180 rear wheel hp to be competitive. (They came stock with 165 DIN, (I think) at the flywheel, so 180 at the wheels is a strech)

If I had the $ I'd be on the phone to my engine guru right now!

Now, if the truth is that only the early cars get classed, with the small motor, then forget it....aint gonna happen!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
04-13-2003, 08:55 AM
Bill Miller

Quote:

Originally posted by garthdexter:
[B]Found a used (ok- burnt) Kirk bolt-in cage and racing muffler today, so it's getting closer to IT spec.

Garth, if that cage came out of a car that burned, I would suggest that you not use it. The metalurgists here can chime in, but the heat from the fire probably compromised the integrity of the steel. Safety is one area that you shouldn't cut corners. I'm not even going to get into the "if you can afford to race a Porsche" thing.

Quote:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Not to slam the SCCA, but don't they have someone familiar with the car's spec line take a look at the specs before publishing?</font>

In a word, NO! I actually chuckled when I read this. They've gotten so many things wrong over the years that it's not even funny any more. And they continue to get things wrong. One of the recent ones was a VW that was just classified. The specs they posted were for a different platform. Sure doesn't make it look like they put much thought into it. Couple this w/ the stance they take when asked to correct weights ("weight is correct as specified"), and you really have to scratch your head. What's even worse though, it it takes months to get the corrections through.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608