Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: ITS Golf/Jetta weight changed

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Renton, WA USA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Originally posted by Bill Miller:
    And I still don't see how you can rationalize the change to the Jetta.

    I don't try anymore... It's done, it appears to be the right move... I'm happy that we're moving in the right direction...


    I have more pressing matters to worry about right now... Like how I'm suppose to compete against a 2.8L 4-valve V6 powered car with monster front brakes and the ability to get down to it's now 2680lbs weight... With a car that is powered by a 2.4L 4v 4-cyl with miniscule brakes that has no shot at getting within 80lbs of it's required minimum weight of 2650lbs... ONLY 30lbs less than the VW...

    Can I change my vote???



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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,181

    Default

    >> 2.8L 4-valve V6 powered car with monster front brakes

    What car is that?

    - Bill

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,335

    Default

    Actually, I would vote for these cars in ITA with a closer look atthier weight in the PCA context.


    Well Andy, you've got your chance!

    Originally posted by Banzai240:
    I don't try anymore... It's done, it appears to be the right move... I'm happy that we're moving in the right direction...


    I have more pressing matters to worry about right now... Like how I'm suppose to compete against a 2.8L 4-valve V6 powered car with monster front brakes and the ability to get down to it's now 2680lbs weight... With a car that is powered by a 2.4L 4v 4-cyl with miniscule brakes that has no shot at getting within 80lbs of it's required minimum weight of 2650lbs... ONLY 30lbs less than the VW...

    Can I change my vote???


    Glad to know where you come down on issues like this Darin. And plese quit putting out mis-information. The VR6 motors in question are 2-valve motors, not 4-valve motors. And it remains to be seen if anyone can get a Jetta down to that weight. If nothing else, it's got the whole issue of 2 extra doors/windows/etc. to deal with. And I'm not convinced that you can get a Golf to that weight either.

    And, FWIW... According to Edmunds.com says:

    1995 Jetta GLX: 2980 lbs.

    1995 GTI VR6: 2818 lbs.

    /edit/ Golf/Jetta VR6 cars came w/ 280mmF/226mmR and the S14 Nissan 240SX came w/ 295mmF/258mmR.

    Which one of those cars has monster brakes? Typical Darin tactic, bluster and mislead when the facts don't fit his agenda.

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

    [This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited January 13, 2004).]

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Souderton PA
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Originally posted by Bill Miller:

    /edit/ Golf/Jetta VR6 cars came w/ 280mmF/226mmR and the S14 Nissan 240SX came w/ 295mmF/258mmR.

    Which one of those cars has monster brakes? Typical Darin tactic, bluster and mislead when the facts don't fit his agenda.

    Go post this crap on the vortex, there's no reason for it here.

    If someone has facts wrong, and you feel strongly about it, send him an email and give him the chance to correct it. I find it very hard to believe that someone would intentionally post misinformation about something so easy to check.

    I value the information and opinions on this site. If people stop posting due to attacks like this we all lose.

    -Bob

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Renton, WA USA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Originally posted by Bildon:
    >> 2.8L 4-valve V6 powered car with monster front brakes

    What car is that??

    - Bill
    Sorry Mr. Bildon... got the valve configuration wrong... Saw DOHC on the spec line and thought the worst... My Bad...

    And, I'm glad to see my attempts at being light hearted/humorous aren't lost on Mr. Miller... (note to self... Bill won't think it's funny, he'll just think it's another "tactic"... so don't even try... )


    For Mr. Millers benefit, and to help prevent HIM from speading further misinformation... the 240SX does NOT have 295mm front brakes, as the ITCS would lead you to believe... it has 258mm x 22mm vented front discs and the Spec Line is incorrect... I don't know where the current specs came from...

    So, 280mm is indeed a monster brake compared to what the 240SX runs...

    I'd like to see just what weight these cars can get down to, because if they end up grossly overweight in IT trim, that data would be good to know. When someone gets one of these ready to go, please pass on this information so I can add it to the spreadsheet of IT weights vs. Ballast that is ongoing...

    Well... better get back to my "agenda"... (Mr. Miller, would you mind faxing me a copy of exactly what that is, because I seem to have lost mine... Oops... I said I wouldn't do that anymore... )

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


    [This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 13, 2004).]

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    <font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...powered by a 2.4L 4v 4-cyl with miniscule brakes</font>
    Oh, you poor, poor little thing! Come sit over here, let us make you feel better... (Patting him on the back, violins playing in the background...)

    Brought to you by the 2.0L-and-under 4-cyl front-wheel-drive ITS contigent...



    (edited to put a smiley face in there, lest anyone get their panties in a twaddle...)

    [This message has been edited by grega (edited January 13, 2004).]

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Renton, WA USA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Originally posted by grega:
    Brought to you by the 2.0L-and-under 4-cyl front-wheel-drive ITS contigent...

    Just so you know... there is a conference call upcoming where this will be one of several issues to be discussed. Give it some time, because it makes sense to VERY few that we have the group of cars that we do in ITS and expect them to compete against each other. It's just that working out and appropriate solution may take some time...

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



    [This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 13, 2004).]

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    You know the Five Stages of Mourning?

    - Denial and Isolation
    - Anger
    - Bargaining
    - Depression
    - Acceptance

    I'm well into Stage 5. Patience? I've got nothing but time, baby...while I build my Spec Miata. Get us into ITA (where I can't even keep up with the ARRC 2003 2nd-place and ITA lap record holder, Anthony Serra) and I'll be forever grateful and back in town enjoying Improved Touring.

    Need data? Need opinions? Need aspirin? Just call.

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
  •