It's here...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 07:57 AM

The Monza is a good example. 115hp from a 3.8l V6!!! There are too many things to consider when looking at this car we don't know. WHY is the car rated so low from Chevy? Cam limitations? Crushed by emissions equipment? Crappy intake? Exhaust holding it back? WHO KNOWS? But the problem is that IF a car with these specs were to hit ITB based on what we know and what we don't, it COULD run wild. Nobody runs them anyway. If the few who do care to send in info that will plead their case, so be it. We went through a lot of cars, and some got passed over for a few reasons, just like this one. RISKS, were not on our agenda. It was too much work to do the research on these kinds of cars...if the competitors want to prove something, bring it on! I rewad all the letters.


AB

[snapback]72267[/snapback]

I'll tell you Andy. 3.8 V\6 115hp but here is the catch...185ftlbs of torque at 2000 RPM. The cars of these days had a carb that was junk(replacable per ITCS) Ran an AIR pump that sucked 15HP right out of them Exhaust manifolds that were as poorly designed as possible. ect. ect. This was the type of car we built in america during these years. My guess is this is one of those oddballs that would find very large gains in HP with very little effort. This same engine just a few years later was making 175 HP and in current EFI GM trim makes 200+ in stock trim. So not only is there a lack of interest the cautious approach is a good one.

Next as far as all cars going through tthe process at some point that may be good. You also have to remember that a plan has to be sold to a large group that had no interest in changing IT, the BOD. I think what has happened is an excellent step for IT and it's future. I would suggest to everybody that we not wear this committee out with a zillion questions as to why all thing aren't perfect yet. I owuld bet money that if a supra is built in the near future and asked for a weight reducttion and an SIR they my actually get it. I know I would support it.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 06:48 AM
Did you read how these things work?

[snapback]72230[/snapback]

Yes I read about them, but no one has shown any test results or even hypothectial data. I'm skeptical unless I see some prove, I'd like to see some data before I plop down $400.00, wouldn't you?

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, let's assume this for now:

All the cars have been reviewed, and the ones that needed to be adjusted, got adjusted. If you disagree with a situation, write a letter.

95% of the time, we will be sending a "Car is properly classified" response to Fast Track.

Maybe 5% of the cars got overlooked (on-purpose) - for the exact reason in my Monza example above.

Every car got looked at. Some we changed, some we didn't need to, some we passed on based on lack of info/interst. (See Monza again)

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 06:22 AM
Bill, I think you completely missed George's point. I believe what he is saying is that within the cars already classified some were not adjusted due to A) not needing it, or not enough info on the car to do so, or C) no one is currently driving one so why waste the time?

If, however, someone shows up in one and can provide the adequate information on it, then it will be considered for going through the formulaic process.

That's all he's saying, nothing more.

[snapback]72239[/snapback]

Thank you Greg. You stated it quite correctly.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 09:33 PM
210 WHP * 18% loss = 248 crank HP at 2850 BMW = 11.49
181 WHP * 18% loss= 214 crank HP at 2680 RX7 = 12.52
165 WHP * 18% loss= 195 crank HP at 2430 240Z = 12.46
Looks kinda like a pattern here. DJ, I agree that Motec has no business here but for now we have it so our stucture must refect that.

[snapback]72194[/snapback]

Joe,
I got:
195 rwhp/2850 = 1 : 14.62 BMW With out motec
181 rwhp/2680 = 1 : 14.81 RX7 ?

Hmmmm looks rather close to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 26 2006, 10:48 AM
Joe,
I got:
195 rwhp/2850 = 1 : 14.62 BMW With out motec
181 rwhp/2680 = 1 : 14.81 RX7 ?

Hmmmm looks rather close to me.

[snapback]72280[/snapback]

And what you are doing is taking the PINNACLE (RX-7) from one example and comparing it to an 'excellent' example of another (E36).

Run the numbers again using an apples to apples:

195/2850 = 14.62
175/2680 = 15.31

or

210/2850 = 13.57
181/2680 = 14.81

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 26 2006, 08:48 AM
Joe,
I got:
195 rwhp/2850 = 1 : 14.62 BMW With out motec
181 rwhp/2680 = 1 : 14.81 RX7 ?

Hmmmm looks rather close to me.

[snapback]72280[/snapback]

DJ, I am not real PC most times so excuse me if this comes off wrong. You are not there yet even with out the Motec you have left something on the table. What rings are you runing? What headers are you using? who blueprinted to injector flow rates. Where are your cams running? What RPM are are you swithing the cam curve in the ECU? There are lots of questions I could ask but as I said I don't believe your package is fully built even short of the Motec. Comparing a fullly built RX7 engine to a partially built Bimmer engine does nothing to balance the class on maximum efforts. Also using RWHP numbers makes you happy but in reality every program out there short of NASA wrks with flywheel numbers. I have seen dyno sheets from a high mileage bimmer engine with a fresh IT prepped head make better power than your stating. Again nothing against your program but I don't think your comparing apples to apples.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 10:56 AM
And what you are doing is taking the PINNACLE (RX-7) from one example and comparing it to an 'excellent' example of another (E36).

Run the numbers again using an apples to apples:

195/2850 = 14.62
175/2680 = 15.31

or

210/2850 = 13.57
181/2680 = 14.81

[snapback]72281[/snapback]

I tried to take 2 top IT cars without motec.
If you speak of motec then look at the arrc race .01 time difference between Whittel & Huffmaster. So what's the problem? hehe

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 26 2006, 11:04 AM
I tried to take 2 top IT cars without motec.
If you speak of motec then look at the arrc race .01 time difference between Whittel & Huffmaster. So what's the problem? hehe

[snapback]72288[/snapback]

The Huffmaster car qualified on top of Chet in Q1 at the ARRC, yes. Do you know the details? In Q1, he was glued to Chet's bumper and let him punch a hole for him. Now, in order to keep up with Chet in the E36, the RX-7 would have to be making huge power AND he would have to have been driving the freakin wheels off of it. Congrats to him - no questions asked.

In Q2, when he was not in the draft, he qualified over 1 second off the pace while Chet ran the same time as in Q1. Was he really that much slower when not being towed around the track? Was he trying another setup? Were his tires going away? Why was he 1 second off the pace? Why was almost everyone running the same times Q1 to Q2 except him. We don't know. He still posted the 2nd fastest time of the session, over 1 second back...

And Chet's RP, was installed as intended or was it 'engineered' out of effectiveness (like any good racer would do given a poorly written rule). Was he restrcted or not...so many variables to take into account when using on-track...which is why it's so dangerous!

I watched Rob's race tape from the ARRC race, and I'm not sure that the RX-7 is quite competitive with the BMW... It made me frustrated just watching the tape, Rob would push everything possible out of that 7, only to get to the back straight and watch the BMW pull 5-10 car lengths on him! Lap after Lap after Lap. It was definitely the closest thing I've seen to a 7 keeping up with the BMW though, and I think I may just have to give the nod to Rob's driving for making that happen...

- Joe Moser 2nd ARRC ITA

Now this is data that you may have never considered but it all relates back to taking on-track for what it is worth. There as so many variables that it is impossible to draw 100% conclusions from anything.

All we want to use is the number and let the chips fall where they may...why is this concept so hard to grasp by the front-runners?

[Bill Miller]

If someone comes up with a currently-classed car that has not gone through the same objective re-weighing process that others have, I do not see any problem with them sending a request that says "please run my car through the PCA process; here's an MVMA and/or VTS for your review."

But there's the rub Greg, there's no way to no which cars were run through the process, and didn't warrant adjustments, and which ones were passed over.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 12:17 PM
But there's the rub Greg, there's no way to no which cars were run through the process, and didn't warrant adjustments, and which ones were passed over.

[snapback]72312[/snapback]

Exactly!

I can't believe Bill and I agree on something. His avatar makes more sense everyday.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Bill Miller+Jan 26 2006, 01:17 PM-->

But there's the rub Greg, there's no way to no which cars were run through the process, and didn't warrant adjustments, and which ones were passed over.

[snapback]72312[/snapback]

[/b]

I thought the exact same thing. But Andy made it pretty clear I think.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 11:36 AM
OK, let&#39;s assume this for now:

All the cars have been reviewed, and the ones that needed to be adjusted, got adjusted. If you disagree with a situation, write a letter.

95% of the time, we will be sending a "Car is properly classified" response to Fast Track.

Maybe 5% of the cars got overlooked (on-purpose) - for the exact reason in my Monza example above.

Every car got looked at. Some we changed, some we didn&#39;t need to, some we passed on based on lack of info/interst. (See Monza again)

AB

[snapback]72275[/snapback]

Assume that it has been considered fully. If you think that full consideration would have resulted in a different result - give supporting reasons and evidence, write the letter.

Lacking a list of the ones that were considered and actively decided they are properly classified, rather than lacking information, I am not sure what else someone could do.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 12:17 PM
...there&#39;s no way to no which cars were run through the process...

[snapback]72312[/snapback]

Yes there is: you ask. - GA

[Joe Harlan]

You guys remind me of the girl I glad I never married. There has not even been time for the ink to dry on this deal and all I am hearing is "what have you done for me lately" Give it a little rest I believe the reasoning and the process has been explained many time in this thread alone.

Matt, if I looked at a 2.2liter daytona I would hesitate moving it to ITB also. I think there is a lot more in that engine package than has been found. I ask the same question. How much work has been done in the way of development? WHo built the engine? Who built the header? Carb or FI and what things have been done there? from your avatar it looks to have OE wheels on it?

[Banzai240]

Guys,

Just for the record... The Supra in question is listed at 200hp stock...

If that&#39;s accurate, then with a 25% increase with IT-prep, it&#39;s HP would be nearly 250hp... The weight, with adders, would come in around 3300lbs...

Since it&#39;s a 3.0L 6-Cylinder, it&#39;s NOT out of reason to imagine these kinds of gains for this motor..... And the torque... well...

So, when this car was evaluated, since there isn&#39;t a lot of data out there to go by, the process shows that&#39;s it&#39;s actually classified fairly close...

A "Pig", perhaps, but at 200hp stock, it shouldn&#39;t even be in this class... If it were classified at 2850lbs... it&#39;d have been made heavier or been given a restrictor...

So, it&#39;s NOT something that was "missed"... It was something that was evaluated and the decision was made that it&#39;s where it needs to be right now...

Here are some engine specs for this model... Read them, and you&#39;ll understand that this classification isn&#39;t more than 50lbs off of where it needs to be for IT...

The ""7M-GE"" introduced in the late months of 1986 was essentially a 24-valve (4 valves per cylinder) variant of the older ""6M"&#39; engine design. ""&#39;7M engines were fuel injected and DOHC. The valves are spaced at a performance-oriented 50° angle. Cylinder bore was 83 mm (3.27 in) and stroke was 91 mm (3.58 in).

The 7M-GE was produced from 1986 through 1992. Output was 190-204 hp (142-152 kW) at 6000 RPM and 185-196 ft.lbf (250-265 Nm) at 4800 RPM.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Jan 26 2006, 10:37 AM
Guys,

Just for the record... The Supra in question is listed at 200hp stock...

If that&#39;s accurate, then with a 25% increase with IT-prep, it&#39;s HP would be nearly 250hp... The weight, with adders, would come in around 3300lbs...

Since it&#39;s a 3.0L 6-Cylinder, it&#39;s NOT out of reason to imagine these kinds of gains for this motor..... And the torque... well...

So, when this car was evaluated, since there isn&#39;t a lot of data out there to go by, the process shows that&#39;s it&#39;s actually classified fairly close...

A "Pig", perhaps, but at 200hp stock, it shouldn&#39;t even be in this class... If it were classified at 2850lbs... it&#39;d have been made heavier or been given a restrictor...

So, it&#39;s NOT something that was "missed"... It was something that was evaluated and the decision was made that it&#39;s where it needs to be right now...

Here are some engine specs for this model... Read them, and you&#39;ll understand that this classification isn&#39;t more than 50lbs off of where it needs to be for IT...

[snapback]72326[/snapback]

Dam it Darin Stop that! Facts on this site take all the fun out of it.....

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 01:29 PM
Lacking a list of the ones that were considered and actively decided they are properly classified, rather than lacking information, I am not sure what else someone could do.

[snapback]72321[/snapback]

Um... publish the list?

[Bill Miller]

But that&#39;s just it Darin, if it&#39;s ok for the Supra to run @ 3380#, based on its process numbers, why isn&#39;t it ok for the E36 to run @ 3150# (or wherever it would be)? You&#39;ve got one of your associates that feels that tire response goes non-linear when you&#39;ve got cars that heavy, on 7" wide rims. If that&#39;s a valid reason for not giving the E36 lead, then other, similar cars, should get similar consideration.

When you make statements like you just did, in light of the fact that the E36 got an SIR instead of lead, it makes it look like the E36 folks got smiled on again, w/ a wink and a nod. How is it ok for the Supra drivers (are there any?) to have to eat tires and brakes, because they have to run at their process weight, but the E36 guys get to run over 500# lighter, and have their power reduced by an SIR? You know me by now, I&#39;m all about internal consistency. I don&#39;t see any way that these two classifications could be considered internally consistent. This makes it look like the E36 guys get special treatment yet again! :angry:

/edit/

And just for clarification, I never said that the supra couldn&#39;t make that kind of power, and that that weight may not be appropriate. But you can&#39;t look at the car in isolation, you have to look at against how other cars are classified.

Like I said 10 pages ago, they should have just thrown 300# of lead at the BMW and been done with it.

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 26 2006, 05:35 PM
You guys remind me of the girl I glad I never married. "what have you done for me lately"

[snapback]72325[/snapback]

There are girls who don&#39;t think like that ???

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Jan 26 2006, 01:37 PM
Just for the record... The Supra in question is listed at 200hp stock...

[snapback]72326[/snapback]

We had one running occasionally out of Waterford. I saw him run 4 or 5 races at Grattan. Won nearly every one IIRC. Broke a lot of hubs. Don&#39;t know what&#39;s up with that car these days.