Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70

Thread: Modern Cars in IT

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Renton, WA USA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
    Matt, I don't know what part of my statement is hard to understand, but I'm talking about Guy Pavageau in his SSB V-6 Camaro, I never said a word about a T2 Camaro. Why are you comparing a V-6 Camaro to a V-8 Camaro?
    You might want to check, but I'm almost certain that the Camaro in T2 is also a V-6...



    ------------------
    Darin E. Jordan
    SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
    Renton, WA
    ITS '97 240SX

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Why are you comparing a V-6 Camaro to a V-8 Camaro?</font>
    Because in Regional events, these classes are commonly placed together as a run group.

    Because of this, weight disparity as a standard for classifications is a moot point.



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    616

    Default

    2Many Z's

    You asked Matt

    Matt, I don't know what part of my statement is hard to understand, but I'm talking about Guy Pavageau in his SSB V-6 Camaro,
    I never said a word about a T2 Camaro. Why are you comparing a V-6 Camaro to a V-8 Camaro?

    And I was confused about what you were saying in this

    I don't know about the V-6 Mustang's potential in ITS (for instance), but a SS Camaro is able to run consistant 1:30's at Summit while the
    largest portion of the ITS field is running 1:27's-1:29's. Seems to me that with IT prep, the V-6 Camaro's and Firebirds would make a
    fairly competitive car with at least the non E36 ITS cars.
    because the b was missing from the ss in front of the camaro. An SS Camaro is an upgrade of the Z-28 v-8 Camaro.

    Banzai240
    <font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You might want to check, but I'm almost certain that the Camaro in T2 is also a V-6...</font>
    The T-2 Camaro is a a Z-28 with an intake restrictor.

    [This message has been edited by jhooten (edited November 09, 2004).]

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Los Lunas, NM, USA
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Originally posted by Banzai240:
    You might want to check, but I'm almost certain that the Camaro in T2 is also a V-6...
    Not unless that Chebby V-6 is a 5.7L



    ------------------
    Ty Till
    #16 ITS
    Rocky Mountain Division

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Renton, WA USA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Originally posted by x-ring:
    Not unless that Chebby V-6 is a 5.7L

    Damn things are kind of like Hondas... Hard to keep track of exactly WHAT is under the hood...




  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Los Lunas, NM, USA
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Ain't that the truth.



    ------------------
    Ty Till
    #16 ITS
    Rocky Mountain Division

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Boyertown, PA- USA
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
    Matt, I don't know what part of my statement is hard to understand,
    I guess it was the part I managed to misread

    I saw SS Camaro and thought SS package, not Showroom Stock. It that case, you're exactly right (sorry). At least there were a few others who saw the same thing I did, even if I was mistaken...



    ------------------
    Matt Green
    "Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Boyertown, PA- USA
    Posts
    454

    Default

    Originally posted by rlearp:
    A 82 5.0L Mustang with the 2bbl had 157hp, a good bit less than the 325 with only a little more torque at around 225 ft/lbs. But it weighs a little more and has a much cruder suspension. Top speed about the same as the 325, I think it is actually less.

    No matter - the point is the car is cheap and while it has a home in American Sedan that is a very wide open class where this car would become expensive to prep. In IT this car would be cheap to prep - shocks, springs, headers, exhaust - would cost next to nothing be reliable, fast, and fun. I'm not wanting one, just using it as an example.
    I've heard this discussion about Pony Cars before. I certainly would love to see some other cars classified before we give the same car more than one place to run at the same prep level.

    I would also argue that AS would be cheaper than an IT class, simply from the standpoint that the rules give you a grocery list. Do these things to your car. No experimentation needed to waste money. Let's face it, AS is just an IT class for Pony Cars already, so why duplicate?

    Oh, and to the question of why do they only race other V8's? Because they all have the same handicaps basically. Why purposly place a big heavy power car against a small light handling car? I like the IT concept because currently, the cars run in a decent pack (but for a few exceptions) where you can dice it up a little. What's the point of having a class where half the group blows by down the straights and then holds up the rest in the turns? It's almost like what happens when PCAs get out of hand...



    ------------------
    Matt Green
    "Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lowell, MA, USA
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Hi, I feel like this post has alot to do with me, so I thought I might add my $.02.

    I have an 02 WRX and am sick of drag racing. I researched a little and found out about scca club racing, and then this sight. If WRXs and other cars like it are allowed into a competitive class in a few years it would be my dream come true. I would even be willing to throw a 2.5rs engine in my car if I had to.

    Even the Ford 500 is AWD. I just read about the new Mazdaspeed 6 - awd turbo. Most of the new cars geared towards the type of people who would do IT are awd, turbo or both.

    There is a pretty healthy competition among wrx owners for the fastest stock turbo car. Anything goes except NOS as long as you have the stock turbo, unmolested. Like I said it is a good competition and the title has changed hands a few times. I dont agree that turbos are too hard to regulate when everyone is running the same turbo, especially if it is undersized, like the wrx's or the 1.8t's.

    BTW I am 27, so I guess I could be considered the future of IT. I wouldnt know a carb if someone threw one at my face, but I do datalog everyday and adjust timing, boost and fuel on my wrx via a piggyback computer.

    I know that this is your club and I respect that, but it would be cool if you guys could open the doors up to people like me, because there are alot of us, and our loans are almost paid off.


    [This message has been edited by Santo Fontana (edited November 10, 2004).]

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    I'm going to sound like an old fart but, as much as I think that we need to be attracting new blood, there are some major issues at hand on the AWD/turbo front:

    ** There are NOT a lot of options out there, even if the Subaru is a good performance value, for cars that would run in its class. With the exception of spec classes, it's arguably hard to make anything viable happen without choices.

    ** While it might be easy to make power for short spurts, it would be pretty damned expensive to keep a turbocharged car with three diffs alive and well over even the medium haul. We made this mistake in rallying when it became essential to have a blower and four wheel drive to run up front. A lot of people have blown up a lot of money on parts that, while they make cars FASTER, they are not necessary to make them go. I am of the strong opinion that if SCCA had never allowed AWD turbo cars in rallying, the program would not have been abandoned this year...

    ** Which brings me to the fact that it is NOT necessary for us to create classes for the fastest models out there, just because they are fast. Every body and their dog makes a 2-liter coupe/HB/sedan thing right now and they have massive market penetration. They are half the initial price of a WRX and 10 guys could pick 10 different cars. They are cheaper to run and it doesn't matter if they are slower than other cars, since they would be racing against other cars that perform similarly.

    That's racing.

    K

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Originally posted by Santo Fontana:
    Hi, I feel like this post has alot to do with me, so I thought I might add my $.02.

    I have an 02 WRX and am sick of drag racing. I researched a little and found out about scca club racing, and then this sight. If WRXs and other cars like it are allowed into a competitive class in a few years it would be my dream come true.....
    I know that this is your club and I respect that, but it would be cool if you guys could open the doors up to people like me, because there are alot of us, and our loans are almost paid off.


    [This message has been edited by Santo Fontana (edited November 10, 2004).]
    Now THIS is a post worth re-reading.

    Santo, I'm not the old guard, but I'm not a guy just out of college either...so while I DO agree that the 'old way' needs some rethinking, I also understand what got us here.

    I'm sure you understand the racing bug...and what people will do to win a $5 trophy! It gets kinda crazy, and the club has had some bad (turbo) experiences in the past.

    Part of it is that there is little understanding of the people who want to race the cool new turbos, and part of it is the fear that they won't be able to control it and make it fair for everyone.

    So, let me ask you some questions...you seem to be the perfect candidate for the future... If the SCCA had a class that your car fit into, what kind of mods would you want allowed, and what would you want banned? Would you want it for your car only? What other models might you like in the class?

    Remember, roadracing is as much about suspension setup and corner weighting as it is about intercoolers and turbos. Most guys who race end up spending more money on tow rigs and trailers, hotel and gas bills than they care to, and they want to keep the money that has to be spent on the car to a minimum. Why allow something that will make the car a second or so faster a lap, but cause the engine to blow or wear out in half the time? So think about that point of view when you design your "dream class"! Also, no car can turn a wheel on the track to race without a complete safety package..which costs bucks as well. IT has become as popular as it is because people can get an old cheap car, then build and invest slowly, all the while racing and learning. For some, the low investment is key.

    Second...if you were in charge, how would you police your class to ensue all cars were legal?? Can you design the class so it's easy to keep everyone in line? Remember, the SCCA is all volunteers, so staffing isn't too deep! And expensive test equipment isn't available at every race across the country every weekend. (Actually, it's not really available at ANY race except one or two!)

    Finally, would you want to get serious and race for a National Champoinship, or are you looking to just have fun at tracks where you live? Where are you located, BTW?

    You brought up some excellent points in your post....I guess what i'm trying to figure out is, 'If we build it, will you come?', (and how many of you)...to paraphrase the famous movie line.



    ------------------
    Jake Gulick
    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    ITA 57 RX-7
    New England Region
    [email protected]

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    554

    Default

    I find it interesting that in 13 years we have come full circle - most specifically in SS / Touring. In 1991, they decreed AWD illegal in SS, and in '93 they banned turbo's. I had an '88 Celica AllTrac (aka: GT4) that I had bought new and planned to race in SSA after it was paid for (in '92).

    The philosophy was that AWD had an advantage in the wet - DUH -(they left out the fact that the AllTrac was less than competitive in the dry)! And they decided they couldn't police turbos. I understood, but I never supported either decision.

    Now they're both coming back. Since AWD turbo pocket rockets are becoming popular, again, they need a place to race. The inclusion of the Neon SRT-4 in T2 last year was just the start.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    I thought of another great car for IT, the Ford Taurus SHO. Abundant now, not that expensive, and even though it has 220hp stock as long as we stick with a race weight similar to curb weight or a few % less (unlike the BMW 325s) then it should be just fine and not an overacheiver. Getting more power from the Yamaha 5 valve V6 is NOT easy, that is for sure.



    ------------------
    Ron
    http://www.gt40s.com
    Lotus Turbo Esprit
    Ford Lightning
    RF GT40 Replica
    Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Is the 1st Gen SHO RWD?

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Nope, they are all front wheel drive. Ron

    ------------------
    Ron
    http://www.gt40s.com
    Lotus Turbo Esprit
    Ford Lightning
    RF GT40 Replica
    Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

  16. #56
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    There is a philosophical question underlying this conversation - why should cars get classified?

    Should anything that is requested find a home, irrespective of its value to the program in general? Not to pick on this specifid example but i fail to understand how allowing the SHO to run in IT is going to contribute to the long-term health of the category in any meaningful way.

    That's just my bias, however: That diversity is a good thing to a point but allowing relatively rare stuff into the mix creates potential problems if in fact equity (read: PCA implementation) is seen as important.

    On the other hand - the addition of common, affordable cars with good aftermarket support (see earlier conversations about ITC candidates) DOES seem to hold potential for growing grids and the sport as a whole.

    We don't have consensus at this level so what would lead us to think that we can agree on detail implementation of the rules?

    K

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Originally posted by Knestis:
    There is a philosophical question underlying this conversation - why should cars get classified?
    Not to pick on this specifid example but i fail to understand how allowing the SHO to run in IT is going to contribute to the long-term health of the category in any meaningful way.

    I see your point, but, I think there is a reason to class a car if someone asks. If classing a SHO gets us another SCCA member into racing then I think it is a positive thing. Classing it won't upset the balance of IT but if it picked up a few members it'd be fantastic.

    Will it pick up members? I doubt the SHO would, at least not right off the bat. But when I started this thread one of the things I mentioned was that the SCCA leaves out a lot of people who want to race (remember my story of the mechanic and his Camaro, and that of another new user that posted on this thread) so classing as many cars as possible certainly won't hurt. Does it cost us anything to class them? I don't think so, make a new line in the ITS grid in the GCR for a Ford Taurus, give an estimated weight, year range, and wait for someone to build one.

    My Jensen that I am building is like that - there are no others running in IT, yet it remained on the books and atracted me. I didn't want to build an RX7, Honda, BMW, etc. because those cars didn't interest me. But, the Jensen with a Lotus powerplant that it shares with my Lotus street car does interest me. Don't believe this lead me to IT? Ask Jeff, he watched it happen. I had no interest in racing IT due to the cars I saw in IT, until I got ahold of the GCR in the back of his truck and found something I liked. Not everyone is out there to win or be competitive (obviously, I'd pick a 2nd gen RX7 or BMW for ITS) and some might do it for the fun of building, people they meet, and a car they like.

    I think we should identify as many cars as possible to class so as to expand the breadth of IT since it might allow some to race who otherwise would not. Besides, having a diverse field, at least to me, is much cooler than a bunch of the same cars, which you said. Having "strange cars" is not going to cause problems, you've got a lot of more common cars classed already and they are staying, so people can choose the path less followed if they like, or they can choose to walk the line with everyone else.

    Now, is that 80s Chysler K car with the manual transmission classed? Might be a good one....

    Ron


    ------------------
    Ron
    http://www.gt40s.com
    Lotus Turbo Esprit
    Ford Lightning
    RF GT40 Replica
    Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

    [This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 19, 2004).]

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    1,215

    Default

    Originally posted by rlearp:
    I thought of another great car for IT, the Ford Taurus SHO. Abundant now, not that expensive, and even though it has 220hp stock as long as we stick with a race weight similar to curb weight or a few % less (unlike the BMW 325s) then it should be just fine and not an overacheiver. Getting more power from the Yamaha 5 valve V6 is NOT easy, that is for sure.
    There was an SHO from the Chicago region running in ITE last month at Gateway. I was working a corner and you could tell that the thing had great straight line power, but didn't deal that well with turning. It may have just been the driver as the car looked to be fairly fresh and every once in a while he actually did my turn fairly quickly. He was the only one in his class, so maybe he wasn't pushing it.



    ------------------
    Scott Rhea
    It's not what you build...
    it's how you build it

    Izzy's Custom Cages

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Kirk, I too see your point, but think of it this way.

    Take a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of race cars of a certain make and the denominator is the number of street cars of the same make.

    Oddly enough, I would suspect that the ones with the highest value fraction would be "oddball" IT cars. Alfa Milanos, TR8s, Opel GTs, Jensen-Healeys.

    In other words, because these cars have a cult following, it is MORE likely that someone is going to be crazy enough to turn it into a race car.

    From what I've seen, racers are of two broad categories. 80-90% have some "brand" loyalty but are more interested in building a car that is sure to be competitive. The other 10-20% is a significant chunk of the SCCA, and consists of idiots like me who engage in Quixotic quests to make an unusual car a sem-competitive race car.

    I guess what I am saying is that racing is not "normal" behavior and it attracting for the most part gearhead oddballs. Some of those gearhead oddballs make a quirky car choice because, well, they are gearhead oddballs. They, as 10-20% of an IT field, are as important, and perhaps more important, to the long term health of IT than the guy who ran a 240z in the 80s, a 2nd Gen RX7 in the 90s and now wheels a 325. Not to knock him, but he's also probably the guy who bailed on IT to go SM racing because it is close and exciting. He's looking for the next best thing.

    The oddball -- and there are more than you think even in the SE Div (Alfa Milanos, AMC Spirits, TR8s, even 240-260-280s and 924/944s have to be considered unusual cars when compared to the norm of 240sx/RX7/BMW) -- is the guy who is going to stick with his car and the class.

    So, finding and classing unusual performance cars is actually probably just as likely, in my opinion, of attracting new guys who stay as making sure the latest hot 4-door sedan has a place to race. I guarantee you that if you make a place in ITS for the SHO, the 928, or something like a Subaru SVX, someone, somewhere will think like I did, or Ron did and go "Cool! what a neat race car that would make!".

    Off soapbox now.

    Kurt, you done racing for the season?

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    2,555

    Default

    Originally posted by JeffYoung:
    So, finding and classing unusual performance cars is actually probably just as likely, in my opinion, of attracting new guys who stay as making sure the latest hot 4-door sedan has a place to race. I guarantee you that if you make a place in ITS for the SHO, the 928, or something like a Subaru SVX, someone, somewhere will think like I did, or Ron did and go "Cool! what a neat race car that would make!".
    Since nobody has requested classification with the intent of building a car, why bother? If someone would seriously like to build a car, all they have to do is write the CRB and request classification.


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

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •