Del Sol VTEC - Please Contact me

[Andy Bettencourt]

But Andy... Look at your torque curve between 5000 and 7000 and look at Zsolt's between 5500 and 7500.
Yours is nice and flat, his is dropping steadily.
I'm pretty sure this is where upshifts and corner exits are landing in both cars.[/b]

You say it like they are drastically different. The 1.8 has 125ft/lbs from 5500 to almost 7000. The 1.3 has 125ft/lbs from 5000 to 7000. Both cars are at 115ft/lbs at 7500. 1 or 2 ft/lbs here and there inside those numbers...the differences are so small.

Factor in that the RX7 is transferring all that weight to the drive wheels while the Integra is doing the opposite and any mystery is solved.

And I agree that 40lbs won't make a huge difference, but 90 to 100 will, so I'll say it one more time...
ITS Integra GSR - 2600lbs.[/b]

90 lbs. We will agree to disagree. Rucks car came off the ARRC race almost (or more?) than 100lbs over minimum for that car in 2005 - didn't seem to hurt him much...

Look guys, the ONLY thing the GSR has on the RS/LS (that is in ITA) is about 20ish peak hp at the top end. Thats it.
Chassis, brakes, aero... everything else is the same.
So riddle me this...
With just a 20 peak hp advantage (and the non VTEC ITA cars actually have a better TQ curve), why is the GSR not only in a higher class but also weighs more?
See... That doesn't make sense. And if it makes sense in the formula then I suggest that the formula is busted. [/b]

Why are you comparing cars from class to class? It's apples to oranges. The GSR should run at least 30 more WHP than the ITA car...

I admit that the disconnect here is FWD vs RWD and the 'compensation' paid to the FWD for having the handicap.

[iambhooper]

as i hope to eventually graduate from my ITC car, i've been following this with some interest. brand loyalty, is not necessarily as important to me as a competetive, reliable and attractive ride are.

so, having been following this thread, i have one question. i haven't seen anyone mention over boring the integra or del sol's motors. i know you are allowed to go out 40 over. what difference does this make on the hp/tq curve? or are the blocks built to such tollerance's that you cant over bore? i figure that the bmw guys are surely seeking out every advantage from the block.

just curious, as i try to follow allong.

Thanks!
hoop

[Catch22]

Andy,

I compared the two cars in different classes for one reason, the reason you (inadvertantly I think) supported in your reply.
The ONLY difference is about 30hp (I think its more like 25, but I'll give it to you). Thats it.
And the ITA car has better TQ.

So... It makes no sense that 2 otherwise identical cars are separated by weight AND class.
Thats double jeopardy!!!
30hp alone surely doesn't warrant all that. At the very least the ITS Integra needs to weigh the same as the ITA Integra.

And 90lbs does matter to someone who can't finish a race with front tires or brakes still working.
Hell, ANYTHING matters to that person. Give 'em 25lbs and they'll smile and take it.

And I'll finish with this...
I know we don't want to use results, but... To date nobody has been able to get a GSR under the ITA track record at Road Atlanta. Two separate ARRC podium finishers (in other classes) have tried in fully prepped cars and failed.
Again, for emphasis... Thats the ITA record. The ITS record is... Well... Lets just say the times aren't even close to the OLD pre-dominant BMW lap times.
OK, we don't want to use results. But sometimes we may need to admit that results might be an indicator that something is wrong with the process.

[SPiFF]

Why are you comparing cars from class to class? It's apples to oranges.
[/b]

Apple to oranges? The cars are identical spec other then the motor and the gear box. Even the 2nd gen Integars are mechanically not that much different.

GSRs have yet to be able able to consitently run the same lap times as the ITA Integras. Maybe we need better shoes in the S cars, but that should send a message.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what you guys are telling us is that the ITA Teg at it's weight is a faster car than the ITS GS-R at it's weight?

I don't buy it. Put the ITS drivers in the ITA cars and see if they can match thier times.

And I say apples to oranges in that the weight of one car in one class has nothing to do with the weight of another in another...it's not even fair to compare bcause they ae held to different standards with different tartgets and different adders.

[R2 Racing]

Rucks car came off the ARRC race almost (or more?) than 100lbs over minimum for that car in 2005 - didn't seem to hurt him much...[/b]

I came in 90lbs over (2570), and yes, I do believe it hurt me. Take that 90lbs off of my car and I'm on Alex and Joey's ass. Believe me, add 90lbs to both of their cars and it may have been a different race. (Not to take anything away from either of them - they're both phenomenal drivers with incredible cars and deserved it.) Through two years of constant (and often tedious) development, I finally just got the suspension on the car a month before the ARRC that allowed me to keep the tires underneath it for the whole race. Add 30 more whp (which would only be ~175whp btw) and another 100lbs and I'm not sure it would take enough time off of my laps to be ITS fast or be able to last for a full sprint race without burning off the tires.

[Catch22]

Well, I'm done.

All I can do is keep repeating the same thing, so... Uncle.

[lateapex911]

OK, let me make sure I understand you guys.

ITA Integras and GSRs are the same excepting the motors.

And the GSRs are 20 hp? stronger?

But the lap times for the GSRs are slower (where the best have both run in good conditions on the same track)

(Forgetting that it is tough to compare times due to changing conditions.....)

What are you guys thinking the ITA tegs put down for tq and hp?

And, in qualifying, can you really put the lack of speed on the brakes?
I would think that the car should be able to use that extra power....at least in qualifying, right?
Or am I missing something here?

[Jeremy Billiel]

This is right from Edmonds.com. I chose just one year (95), but it is the exact same for all years.
IT Weight HP TQ
1995 ITA LS 2620 142 127
1995 ITS GSR 2690 170 128

I have not seen a dyno plot of an prepped ITA Integra motor, but the point is the GSR is holding 70lbs more and all it has is peak HP. I am willing to bet the TQ is higher on an non-VTEC 1.8. Does anyone have a dyno plot they are willing to share?

[Catch22]

OK, let me make sure I understand you guys.

ITA Integras and GSRs are the same excepting the motors.

And the GSRs are 20 hp? stronger?

But the lap times for the GSRs are slower (where the best have both run in good conditions on the same track)

(Forgetting that it is tough to compare times due to changing conditions.....)

What are you guys thinking the ITA tegs put down for tq and hp?

And, in qualifying, can you really put the lack of speed on the brakes?
I would think that the car should be able to use that extra power....at least in qualifying, right?
Or am I missing something here?
[/b]

Jake,
I'm mainly comparing the 2nd gen Integra to the 3rd gen GSR because nobody has really yet developed a 3rd gen ITA Integra. BUT, the 2nd and 3rd gen ITA Integras are damned near identical except for bodywork, so its a reasonable comparison.

The problem is that the GSR has a tad less torque and carrying 110 more lbs. That extra 25ish hp helps the GSR in exactly one place... At the very end of long straights. That does not overcome the difficulties it has braking, upshifting, and on corner exit with that extra 110lbs.
Trust me because I know first hand. Weight is a KILLER in these cars. If you really look at it closely, and read what the experienced honda guys are saying, it makes sense.

Dammit Jake, you made me repeat myself again.

[lateapex911]

ha ha! My dastardly plan WORKED! LOL.

Ok, so susp, brakes and chassis are the same. Hp is 25 higher on the GSR, but tq is a "tad" lower. What's a tad?

(Don't repeat yourself, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be clear and have numbers, thats all)

[Racerboy03]

To quote Serra from the thread last month..

"I have tuned many cars that were built to the hilt, including some GSR's only to find big power gains in a properly tuned exhaust and ecu.I will not share numbers, but theses cars can make good power, if they are set up properly, a shorty exhaust totally kills the torque on those motors, in fact I tuned a well known ITS car that was a (fully built car) only to find he was leaving 10+ hp at the wheels with a fully built motor and his number was north of 185,brakes are not a problem if bias and pad compound combo's are set front to rear,in fact last years 05 arrc winner in ITA was using the same pads I run and he can attest to how well they work. I wouldn't nail the coffin shut on that car dump 60-90lbs off of it and it would be a worthy contender.As far as the A Integra's the weight is not going to affect its performance at all, if you guys are worried about running out of brakes in short sprint races, your running some old technology pads, or holding on to that middle pedal to long,you want to go fast in a fwd Acura brake balance is key.If any of you guys would like any help my contact numbers are readily available.The fact is no one has really built one of these cars to its full potential, I would give it a try but we have too much on our table right now...

..as far as intake manifold & head you are quite mistaken as they flow very well, infact some of the top all motor cars in the country running b series have used stock gsr intakes over many others in the past.It is possible to get the results, but hey will not come cheap, ..

...you will also need a 5.08 final drive which I have to really be able to hang with the top guys in ITS, a 4.9 on the longer tracks,with a 4.7 you will not even hang with the mid packers in ITA, It will not be a cheap car to build right but most of the cars in S are pretty big dollar." -Anthony Serra

This was from the thread last month about the Feb fastrack:
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...pic=7141&st=400

Just some food for thought, this thread seems to look an awfull lot like the thread last month.

-Mark C.

[Catch22]

I said "a tad" because thats what the ITA Integra guys say, presumably because they don't want to share real numbers publicly.

The *best* TQ number I've seen from a fully built GSR is 130 at the wheels. I've seen several as low as 126, so we can safely call it 128.

Maybe someone like Ruck or Muresan can share what they get from their ITA cars. If not publicly then maybe a PM to me or Jake.
Right now, all I have is "a tad higher."
So I'd guess somewhere between 132 and 135.

Think of it this way...
If you took Muresan's ARRC winning Integra and made it ~4 mph faster at the end of the longest straights, but added 110lbs to it, could it compete in ITS?

Thats what you are currently asking of the GSR.

Doesn't add up, does it?

[timmyc]

just to weight in , i built a 99 civic si , to replace the aging 92 prelude si.the civic looked appealing at 2360, far less than the prelude at 2715.after driving both i have to say the civic will not catch the fast rx7 or the e36.in four outings we were consistantly 2-3 seconds off the fast guys.with the prelude we were only 1-1.5 seconds off the same cars.so to add wieght to the del sol or civic is a death nail in ITS.two points to make,(1)the formula for determining roll bar tubing goes out the window,since at 2360 the tubing size is 1.5x.095.when you add 220 lbs. the roll bar size goes to 1.75x.095 or1.75x.120.so is the cage that i had built leaga ?(point 2) our car will need at least 160lbs. of ballast, where does all that weight go.are these points factored into the formula for determining weights in IT. J ust my thoughts on the subject .timmy chapman

[R2 Racing]

I haven't said what my torque number was because I really can't remember what it was. I'd have to dig out my dyno graph. I believe it was in the 130 range but can't verify that for sure right at the moment.

[stevel]

So what you guys are telling us is that the ITA Teg at it's weight is a faster car than the ITS GS-R at it's weight?

I don't buy it. Put the ITS drivers in the ITA cars and see if they can match thier times.
[/b]

I wouldn't say the ITA car is faster, but I bet the GSR only marginally beats the ITA car. The ITA car has more torque and it comes on earlier.

And I say apples to oranges in that the weight of one car in one class has nothing to do with the weight of another in another...it's not even fair to compare bcause they ae held to different standards with different tartgets and different adders.
[/b]

I disagree. When we're talking about the same chassis, same brakes, and marginally more power I think it's a pretty fair comparison. They are held to different standards (power/weight) but that's the basis for the argument.

To quote Serra from the thread last month..


This was from the thread last month about the Feb fastrack:
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...pic=7141&st=400

Just some food for thought, this thread seems to look an awfull lot like the thread last month.

-Mark C.
[/b]

yes, we discussed this back on page 1.

I can understand your justification for the GSR weight, i disagree, but your points I can understand. I still think it needs 100lbs less. I think FWD in ITS needs more of a subractor than it does for ITA. I think that extra weight of the ITS car just hinders the FWD that much more. The subtractor for FWD in ITA should not be the same subtractor for FWD in ITS. Is that the case? Or am I wrong?

I can't for the life of me understand how that much weight was added to the del sol and Civic Si. For a car to weight that much when it only has 105 ft/lbs torque to the wheels and barely 160hp (if it can even get that) in full IT trim, it's just a dead car now.

just my $.02.

s

[Racerboy03]

yes, we discussed this back on page 1.

I can understand your justification for the GSR weight, i disagree, but your points I can understand. I still think it needs 100lbs less. I think FWD in ITS needs more of a subractor than it does for ITA. I think that extra weight of the ITS car just hinders the FWD that much more. The subtractor for FWD in ITA should not be the same subtractor for FWD in ITS. Is that the case? Or am I wrong?

I can't for the life of me understand how that much weight was added to the del sol and Civic Si. For a car to weight that much when it only has 105 ft/lbs torque to the wheels and barely 160hp (if it can even get that) in full IT trim, it's just a dead car now.

just my $.02.

s
[/b]

I agree that the weight should be dropped, I wasnt saying it is fine where it is.

I was posting his quotes because I thought it was relevant to what was being discussed on this page, especially since it is from a reputable engine builder and has experience developing the chassis. He also posted on page 19 of that thread that the weight should be 2600.

Ideally, the weight should be 2600 for the GSR, and I dont think it would be too much to ask for seeing the recent weight adjustments in IT. The ITAC can keep track of it at 2600 and adjust it back up if it becomes too competitive (..it wont). As far as the Civic/Del Sol, the Si would have been interesting at 2360, but that motor is even worse with torque then the GSR and the weight will kill it.

-Mark C.

[Bob Roth]

For what its worth, the car weighed in at 2394 w/o driver but with full tank. which I assume to be 11 gallons.
(it might have more, its an old endutance car....) As such with a empty tank its 2327 and with me 200 pounds its 2527 empty. 2594 full. Its got a heck of a cage and hasn't been particularialy lightened. I
am racing the end of april. Any way to get a wright brek at least so I don't have to buy ballast?

[charrbq]

just to weight in , i built a 99 civic si , to replace the aging 92 prelude si.the civic looked appealing at 2360, far less than the prelude at 2715.after driving both i have to say the civic will not catch the fast rx7 or the e36.in four outings we were consistantly 2-3 seconds off the fast guys.with the prelude we were only 1-1.5 seconds off the same cars.so to add wieght to the del sol or civic is a death nail in ITS.two points to make,(1)the formula for determining roll bar tubing goes out the window,since at 2360 the tubing size is 1.5x.095.when you add 220 lbs. the roll bar size goes to 1.75x.095 or1.75x.120.so is the cage that i had built leaga ?(point 2) our car will need at least 160lbs. of ballast, where does all that weight go.are these points factored into the formula for determining weights in IT. J ust my thoughts on the subject .timmy chapman
[/b]

I do believe we've hit a bit of a sticky wicket with the roll bar thickness issue. As it is not clearly written, there is only a specification for where the weight is to be located, but I want to see how someone can safely mount 100 extra lbs. in the front floor board of a stamped steel uni-bodied car. What I hope not to see is something that causes that weight to come loose during competition. I'm sure that the formula for weight versus horsepower didn't include the change in roll cage construction.
I always thought that one of the main missions of the SCCA was safety. I suppose our insurance carrier thinks the same.

2 dimes

[dickita15]

You guys keep straying into “this car is slow and need help”, that argument will not work. The ITAC has said the car was run thru the process and fits. They do not entertain this type of argument for a particular car. Is there a problem with the process that works pretty well for A-C when you get to S. you have talked about the GSR and the Del Sol. Are there other example of FWD S cars that have been run thru the process but still don’t work. Is there a larger trend that demonstrates there is an overall problem with FWD in S.