Logic - If X is in A, Y should be in S

[Geo]

Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
Wait untill some one has the cash to build a fast 944 S. Then there will be 2 monsters.

Perhaps, but I bet not. I think the Bimmer will still be a hotter car because the ECU in the Bimmer can mess with cam timing as I understand it. Shoot, it gives the Bimmer something nobody else can mess with, even mechanically (other than offset keys at the crank that won't even come close to what the Bimmer can do).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by Eagle7:
Gen II RX-7 - 2680 lb / 170 RWHP = 15.8

DOH! You're right. I mixed whp with bhp.

Thanks for the correction.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bill Miller]

Hey George, do the same analysis that you did w/ the 944 and the S13 240SX with a Rabbit GTI and a PL-510, and let me know what you find.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[RFloyd]

Can the 86-89 Integra lose some weight? I mean, those of you that have built one, have you had to ballast them? I think those cars are not that different than an 84-87 Civic, but with bigger brakes and motor. If they can lose the "80" out of the listed 2380, I think that they would make a decent ITA car. On paper they would not look worse than say, a Miata, but you can probably squeeze more power out of the Honda than out of the Mazda. Both are similar to the MR2, but as I understand it, the MR2 can't lose the weight, right?

[/B]

Nah, I think 2380 is pretty unrealistic for the 1g Integra. Mine was stripped bare and still had about 100 lbs to lose. Best I ever got was about 2460ish, but that was with an almost dry fuel tank. For Honda Challenge, the minimum weight for the 1g Integra is 2500 and it is classed against the used to be ITB Accords, and the 84-87 CRX Si and 3g Civic Si, all of which should be in ITB. The other thing that makes the 1g a bad choice for ITA is the D16A1 engine doesn't respond nearly as well to IT allowed prep as a D16A6 like in the 88-91 CRX Si, even though it is a twin cam. Had a discussion with Adam Malley about that issue not long after I built my car. Seems a lot of what holds that engine back has to do with cylinder head geometry, and there is only so much blood that you'll ever get out of that turnip. Combine that with no available alternate FD ratios (other than a $1600 Houseman unit if you've got a really deep wallet) and you can understand why the old Integra got pushed down the long straights by ITB cars and LEFT by the IT7 cars in a straight line like I was dragging the QE2's anchor!

It sure was a fun and reliable car though, just as long as you liked racing in the back third of the class!

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[Karl Bocchieri]

I agree with Jake, there needs to be another class above S. There are alot of new cars that will soon be ready for IT, but they will all be too fast for S. What do you do? Make them weight 3500 lbs? Make them breath through an inlet restrictor the size of a soda straw? I would love to run a 350Z in IT when it becomes 5 years old, or a Boxter, or the numerous other sports cars that can't be clasified because of their "competition potental".

[sgraves]

I'm getting in to this a little late, but I have to say something because it hits close to home.

I was in the race in my 944 at Texas Motor Speedway that George is reffering to. I came in 5th in ITS. There were 9 or 10 ITS cars. The only ITA car that finished ahead of me was Bob Stretch, however, the car I raced with during the whole race was the 2nd place ITA CRX. All of the ITS cars in front of me were Nissan 300Zs, or Datsun 240s. The ITS cars behind me were a Honda, an Alfa, George's Nissan Sentra and a few others. The ITS winner was about 2 seconds per lap faster, so was the Bob in his ITA car.

I could keep up with, or even gain on the lead ITS car in the turns and braking, but he would drive away from me on the straights.

I've been racing my 944 for 6 years and have done a lot of work to make the car better. However, I always run in to the same thing wherever I go. The lead ITS car is usually 2 to 3 seconds per lap faster. I have raced at TMS, TWS, Memphis, Grattan, Mid-Ohio and Hallett. It has always been the same result, a Datsun, BMW, or 2nd generation RX7 wins ITS. Some days I get lucky and only one of the 3 will show up, so I get a shot at a top 3.

I don't necesarilly agree with George that the 944 should go to ITA. I think it is a mid pack ITS car and there are others that are even a lot worse off. I do believe there are a whole bunch of ITS cars that should be adjusted to have a competitive chance. Hopefully PCAs will do something for us.

S Graves
1984 ITS 944

I've posted this reply in previous threads, and I still stand by my statement that the ITS class had some great, close racing up until the E-36 was introduced.
944's, 240Z's, RX-7's, Integras are all turning similar laps in the DC region, it's too bad they are all 2+ seconds behind the top E-36's.


Get rid of that car and you'd have a very close field needing only very minor weight changes to even everyone up.

I heard a rumour at Marrs 1 that Ed York is asking all the Marrs ITS drivers to write letters to the CRB asking that the E-36 be classed in a Production class so he can have some competition.
The Production racers don't want the car as it is already turning regional EP times in IT trim. It would be an overdog even in EP more than likely.

[Knestis]

That's the best argument that I've heard yet for the revival of DP.

K