Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 137

Thread: Toyota Corolla ITA or ITB?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    So far as I know, nobody has any data on a "real" IT 2.0 VW engine yet.

    The car that I've just acquired is one of the early ones, with the forged crank, so it's going to be the basis for the build. It won't be anything exotic but at least all of the cylinders will have more than 155 pounds of squeeze.

    K

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Originally posted by Knestis:
    So far as I know, nobody has any data on a "real" IT 2.0 VW engine yet.

    The car that I've just acquired is one of the early ones, with the forged crank, so it's going to be the basis for the build. It won't be anything exotic but at least all of the cylinders will have more than 155 pounds of squeeze.

    K
    I do believe that Tim Mullen's car up here in the NE has a full-bore Shine Racing Services effort. A call to them may bet you the info you need.

    AB

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

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    newington, ct
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    2500 lbs would chew up brakes and rotors (at least on an MR2)???

    ------------------
    Dave Gran
    NER ITB #13
    '87 Honda Prelude si

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    An aditional 130lbs would render the car dangerous? Come on guys, let's get real.

    AB

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

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    The 2500 pounds of Golf we drag around for hours isn't hard on brakes. I drove the car home from SP on the pads that went the distance at the 12 hours. I'll probably get at least a couple more regionals out of them.

    That said, I don't know how big the rotors are on the Toyotas. Ours are 256mm front, 226mm rear.

    K

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Originally posted by Knestis:
    The 2500 pounds of Golf we drag around for hours isn't hard on brakes. I drove the car home from SP on the pads that went the distance at the 12 hours. I'll probably get at least a couple more regionals out of them.

    That said, I don't know how big the rotors are on the Toyotas. Ours are 256mm front, 226mm rear.

    K
    244mm F, 239mm R
    or
    257mm F, 262mm R

    AND a much better weight distribution for braking...Jake will tell you his car is PRIMO under braking...

    AB

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

  7. #47
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Oh, wah. 130# won't mean squat, then.

    Is someone going to make me sorry that I support this idea? It really bugs me when people play the safety card when arguing for their own competitive advantage.

    K

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Kensington, CT, USA
    Posts
    1,013

    Default

    For the record I hadn't meant to imply a safety concern. At least at 2500lbs it wouldn't be a safety issue. Something like another 100lbs to the spec weight of the RWD Toyotas would probably be a prudent move, and move them from being a "tweener" to a no-brainer ITB car.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Originally posted by Jake:
    For the record I hadn't meant to imply a safety concern. At least at 2500lbs it wouldn't be a safety issue. Something like another 100lbs to the spec weight of the RWD Toyotas would probably be a prudent move, and move them from being a "tweener" to a no-brainer ITB car.

    Jake,

    This is what I tried to get done w/ the Rabbit GTI. I suggested adding 170# to it, and moving it to ITC. The response was that it fell w/in the performance parameters of the class. I actually laughed out loud when I read that. IIRC, even some of the ITAC members have said it's a 'tweener' car.

    Be interesting to see what the response to my request for publishing the performance parameters of the class is.


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

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Performance parameters for ITB:

    Too slow for ITA and too fast for ITC.



    AB

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

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

    Default

    Ahhhh...the always present, "bottom line"...

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

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    why won't my post refresh?? errr...it's on the second page...sorry...

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

    [This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 20, 2005).]

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,332

    Default

    Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
    Performance parameters for ITB:

    Too slow for ITA and too fast for ITC.



    AB

    Hey Andy, aren't the SM folks calling you?



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

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Kensington, CT, USA
    Posts
    1,013

    Default

    Bill, to be honest I haven't been following your GTI issue, but at 2350lbs and 90hp it sounds like a good fit for ITC. Especially considering that the 914 1.7L was just moved from ITB to ITC at 2080lbs and 80 hp which is a better power to weight ratio. And that car is mid-engined, rear wheel drive, and has four-wheel disks - all that is is worth like an extra 25-50 hp!

    On the other hand, the 1st gen CRX Si has similar weight and power and only recently moved from ITA to ITB. I would imagine putting nearly 200lbs on most cars would make them candidates for a move down.

    [This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
    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

    What about the volvos? They arent FWD, and are just as fast as any Toyota I've seen in ITA....


  16. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Originally posted by Jake:
    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
    The Hummer is a pig? You would love the Touareg that I tow the Corolla to the track with.. 220hp and 5086lbs! I'd kill for the hummers P/W!

    Actually, its just fine towing the 'Rolla at speed in 6th gear with little loss of economy


  17. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    "AND MID-ENGINED"

    AB

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

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Kensington, CT, USA
    Posts
    1,013

    Default

    Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
    "AND MID-ENGINED"

    AB

    OK - don't make me do research! FWIW, the August 85 issue of Consumer Reports tested an MR2:

    weight: 2375, braking from 60mph: 150ft

    The July 87 issue tested an FX16:

    weight: 2365, braking from 60mph: 145ft

    The October 89 issue tested a CRX Si:

    weight: 2170, braking from 60mph: 140ft

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Of course you have ALL the data:

    - test track temp
    - brand of tires
    - equipment used to test

    Jake, you and I both know that the MR2 KILLS under braking...

    AB

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

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Kensington, CT, USA
    Posts
    1,013

    Default

    If you really want I can get that data for you. (need to go through some archives) But I wouldn't say KILLS. To tell you the truth, at the last LRP race I couldn't outbrake anyone - at least into big bend. I need to get all my braking done before the first apex or the thing swaps ends. FWD cars can do the better line by slowing through the first apex. That's not to say that in a straight line I don't have some advantage - but there isn't the advantage you may think in all situations.

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
  •