Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 137

Thread: Toyota Corolla ITA or ITB?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    15

    Default

    I did think about the Corolla.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in NC
    Posts
    969

    Default

    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).]

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Kensington, CT, USA
    Posts
    1,013

    Default

    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    How much "weight" do you think we put on it?



    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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    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...

    OK, it's late, I must be tired...but is the Integra you refer to the same one that won the ARRCs last year???

    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]

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    554

    Default

    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.
    Peter's engine is the twin of mine, and from the same builder - so, yes, that would be valuable.

    The only other major difference between our cars is my suspension is more updated (and a whole lot more $$).

    2550#? I'd have to carry about 250# of ballast.



    ------------------
    Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]

    Website: home.alltel.net/jberry

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in NC
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Im talking about the 1.6 cars (first gen ZC) not the one I drive (B18A) ... 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

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    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?

    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

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Kensington, CT, USA
    Posts
    1,013

    Default

    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!

    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!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Originally posted by Jake:
    I'm glad you noticed!
    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...



    AB

    ------------------
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region, R188967
    www.flatout-motorsports.com

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    358

    Default

    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? (1985 Corolla GT-S IT/A)

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    358

    Default

    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!

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    358

    Default

    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...


  14. #34
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    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

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    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
    You got 120hp??? And I bet your torque is killer too!



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

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Kensington, CT, USA
    Posts
    1,013

    Default

    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

  17. #37
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Originally posted by lateapex911:
    You got 120hp??? ...
    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).]

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Warren, Ohio USA
    Posts
    110

    Default

    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.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    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).]
    Kirk, interesting...I'd KILL for 100 and NINE lb ft of tq! LOL

    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]

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    ...sorry, watching F1 qualifying, and was distracted...dbl post!

    [This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 18, 2005).]

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
  •