Revised ITR list in Fast Track

[Andy Bettencourt]

Couple more things to consider:

1. The split of the Z3's. Look to the weights of the 328/330 for an idea. Should be a no-brianer.

2. Celica GTS. 2380 in ITR. Curb weight of 2500 lbs. Or should it be 2750 in ITS? It was a tweener and leaked in. I think it is better as an ITR car...

3. Looks like they are considering the 'entry' level V8's...they may or may not get in I think.

4. RX-8. All accounts are that this engine is WAY maximized. Betting it hots a second wave around S2000 weight.

5. What else should be in a second wave proposal?

6. Edit - Add Dodge Stealth to Mitsu 3000GT listing...

[seckerich]

[4. RX-8. All accounts are that this engine is WAY maximized. Betting it hots a second wave around S2000 weight.

I see a light at the end of the tunnel--even if it might be a train :P The search is on for a donor.

[Ron Earp]

An RX8 would be an excellent car for ITR, no doubt. 243hp stock, or whatever Mazda said after they didn't produce the 250hp advertised? That suspension system is pretty good from what I understand.

And that GTS at the low weight will be a mighty fun car, not my cup of tea, but it'll be fun I bet. They used those in some sort of celebrity race in CA I saw on TV months back, man, those folks couldn't drive!

The eternal V8 question - I was for them in the initial proposal, but let them go since it was deemed necessary for ITR to have a chance. I don't mind if they are put in there, but they weren't part of the initial sheet submitted. They'll fit fine though and will expand the ITR ranks if the reponse in the Ford forum was correct.

Someone is going to have to do a lot of leg work on those BMW models. We put a few on there because they needed to get seeded, but there are more than we originally thought and someone needs to sort them. They belong, just need to be sorted out.

I think those 3L sixes will be the car to have in R - all of them - Z32, Supra, BMWs - I'll bet all of those motors will do well and any of those cars will be the front runners. And, the class has some "odd balls" for those that like them too, Taurus SHO anyone? Great motor in that one.

R

[its66]

Couple more things to consider:

4. RX-8. All accounts are that this engine is WAY maximized. Betting it hots a second wave around S2000 weight.
...
[/b]

SSSHHHH don't tell the wife, she might figure out that the cage in my street car wasn't really a "factory installed safety device"...

[dj10]

I have also noticed that they have kept the 8.5" wheels for ITR. So this is official?

[Knestis]

Nothing is official until the boards sign off on it...

K

[bldn10]

Steve, check your PM.

[mlytle]

Someone is going to have to do a lot of leg work on those BMW models. We put a few on there because they needed to get seeded, but there are more than we originally thought and someone needs to sort them. They belong, just need to be sorted out.


[/b]

should we just start with the bmw's that are in the list? there is some accuracy work to be done on just those. other bmw's looked at for itr, round two?

i am sure a few of us bmw folks would be happy to help sort out the bmw model stew for the itr committee. shall we?

marshall

[Fastfred92]

In sorting the BMW stuff out I think someone still needs to look at the e36 325 weight ( still too high ).... If the same hp is in a Teg type R but much lower weight what gives..... I still dont buy the 250 hp stuff... just bitching

[JeffYoung]

The last revision included input from Dan Jones. If any other BMW guy wants to weigh in, glad to have the information.

Fred, the 325 weight is,I think, set. Andy et. al. have run the car through the process and that is the weight that gives it ITR power to weight. And the crank hp used was not 250.

[lateapex911]

We've heard that the spec'ed weight is too heavy, AND we've heard it's too light...all from BMW guys.

Makes me think it's "just right", LOL

Oh...that and the fact that thats what the numbers say.

[mlytle]

In sorting the BMW stuff out I think someone still needs to look at the e36 325 weight ( still too high ).... If the same hp is in a Teg type R but much lower weight what gives..... I still dont buy the 250 hp stuff... just bitching
[/b]

weight of the e36 325 is just about right...it can't get much lower realistically due to the physical limitations of the car and the it rules. it will get tight getting to 2765 with a normal sized person, safety gear, radios, driver cooling, etc.

if the hp to weight ratio of OTHER cars is off, that is a different solution. it is interesting looking at the trends in hp/lb accross all the itr cars. all fwd cars have lower ratios than rwd cars, with the exception of the 928.

[dj10]

The last revision included input from Dan Jones. If any other BMW guy wants to weigh in, glad to have the information.

Fred, the 325 weight is,I think, set. Andy et. al. have run the car through the process and that is the weight that gives it ITR power to weight. And the crank hp used was not 250. [/b]

Jeff, I'd be happy to go over any BMW info with anyone who wants to put in their 2 cents worth. My concern is the hp/wt of some of these ITR cars. I beleive it would be prudent for the ITR committee to ensure that every car has been scurtinzed and the hp/wt ratios are correct.


Marshall did point out to me the weight (#2765 the same as the 325) of the Z3, coupled with a 2.8L 193hp engine with 206 ft lbs of torque, stock, is to light. Take a look at the numbers, this does stick out.

[Ron Earp]

all fwd cars have lower ratios than rwd cars
[/b]

It is a balancing act. Some folks wanted to get the "over S FWD cars" into R, but the fact is, they make less hp than the average R car. Therefore, one has to take weight off them to fit them into the class, but, there is a limit to how much weight you can get off the car. Specing it at a weight that is unobtainable doesn't do much good. And then, one has the somewhat subjective hp gains that could be debated to death, adders or subtractors for various things like suspension, brakes, FWD, RWD, transmission, etc.

One thing is certain, the BMW folks should be fairly happy as they'll have a lot of cars to choose from. Furthermore, as a large marquee in the class there will certainly be competitive examples of each running around when all said and done.

Once we start filling in the tech sheets we hope that folks will be stepping up to the plate to fill in the blanks. You fellows that have offered to help with the BMWs will be much utilized for sure. In fact, we should probably start getting a plan in place to assign sheets and start getting them prepped. Jeff and I are working on the 8 today to get him ready for Daytona, we'll formulate a plan.

I've got a couple of sheets I've already started filling in - man, these things take a lot of time!!!!!! It isn't a simple thing to find out what the valve guide material is in a Taurus SHO motor, that doesn't pop up in popular magazine road tests too often these days..... Those tiny spec lines in the GCR show only a fraction of the data.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Marshall -- the fwd cars have a bit more hp/wt to account for the fact that they go off much quicker after a few laps as the front tires are doing all the work -- a phenomenon that increases with hp. I drive rwd cars and am comfortable we got this right.

Dan -- the 2.8 Z3 is the same weight as the E36 325 because (a) the Z3 has an E30 rear suspension and, if you have ever driven one on track (I have) it is an entirely different animal trying to get power down and ( the aero is worse.

Make sense guys?

[Z3_GoCar]

Just for comparison sake, let's look how BMWCCA racing classes these cars togeather in J-Prepared

e-36 325i/is 2900lbs
e-36 325i/is 2850lbs (ITS prepared car minus the SIR restrictor)
e-36 328i/is 2995lbs
e-36/7 Z3 2.8l 2730lbs

even so, there's only been a couple of Z3's that run in BMWCCA racing. I was told by one of those guy's that at least out here even at 20lbs less than the ITR weight it's not competitive. YMMV but I'm sticking with my chassis, and I'm happy to have a place to play. I'll argue the weight issue after we've run a few years and figured out where we stand.

[mlytle]

Just for comparison sake, let's look how BMWCCA racing classes these cars togeather in J-Prepared

e-36 325i/is 2900lbs
e-36 325i/is 2850lbs (ITS prepared car minus the SIR restrictor)
e-36 328i/is 2995lbs
e-36/7 Z3 2.8l 2730lbs

even so, there's only been a couple of Z3's that run in BMWCCA racing. I was told by one of those guy's that at least out here even at 20lbs less than the ITR weight it's not competitive. YMMV but I'm sticking with my chassis, and I'm happy to have a place to play. I'll argue the weight issue after we've run a few years and figured out where we stand.
[/b]

the way bmwcca classes cars is not a very good comparo for scca it. it is done strictly by curb weight and stock hp. no adders or compensation for anything. but if you must, z3's are starting to be build in jp, and one particularly underveloped one is doing quite well. ran faster laps than me at vir.

as i said before, i raced an e30 325 in its for several years before moving to the e36. the rear suspension is not the big problem that it appears folks are making it here. i actually liked it's handling better than the e36, but the m50 engine in the e36 was just so much better than the m20 in the e30. e30 style rear harder to adjust? yes. but once you have it dialed in, it works great.

again, the z3 is classed too light in itr. needs to be at least the same weight as the 328 with the exact same engine. think about it...the z3 is a low two seat sports car..the 328 is a tall two or four door sedan. z3 has quicker steering ratio, same engine, same brakes same front suspension.

[Catch22]

In sorting the BMW stuff out I think someone still needs to look at the e36 325 weight ( still too high ).... If the same hp is in a Teg type R but much lower weight what gives..... I still dont buy the 250 hp stuff... just bitching
[/b]

You must be smiling when you type this because there's no way you can say these 2 cars should weigh even remotely the same.

The Integra is a 1.8 liter 4 thats extremely maxed from the factory so it isn't going to make much more power than stock (if any) in IT prep. Its torqueless (about 130lbft) and FWD.

The BMW is a 3.5 liter inline 6. Its been proven to make nice gains with IT prep, it has wheelspinning torque, and its RWD.

These two cars used to fight heads up all the time in Grand Am Cup. Guess which one was WAYYYYY lighter than the other?

[mlytle]

You must be smiling when you type this because there's no way you can say these 2 cars should weigh even remotely the same.

The Integra is a 1.8 liter 4 thats extremely maxed from the factory so it isn't going to make much more power than stock (if any) in IT prep. Its torqueless (about 130lbft) and FWD.

The BMW is a 3.5 liter inline 6. Its been proven to make nice gains with IT prep, it has wheelspinning torque, and its RWD.

These two cars used to fight heads up all the time in Grand Am Cup. Guess which one was WAYYYYY lighter than the other?
[/b]

i wish it had a 3.5 liter i6.....you meant TWO.5..... :P

[JeffYoung]

Marshall:

CD of a 1992 325is is .32

I could only find CDs for M Roadsters in a quick check: ranged from .37 to .42. The later number maybe is with the top down.

Don't fall into the trap of "it's a sports car, the aero MUST be good." It's just not true. The best CDs out there right now are the Prius and the Insight because of the effect aero has on gas mileage. A Lamborghini Countach has a .42 CD, a Ford Taurus is a lot better.

Aero advantage, by a lot, to the 325.

I suppose we can debate IRS v. other types of less advanced rear suspensions here if you would like, but I'm not going to do that. I drive a live rear axle car, and yes, it can be made to work especially on smooth surfaces. The fact remains that IRS is better. Period.

I firmly believe the Z3 weight is correct and I have no dog in the fight. I also believe the ITAC and ITR Ad Hoc folks concur.

Thanks. E-mail is [email protected] if you want to continue this discussion of line.

Jeff