ITR Competition

[zracre]

I have had the pleasure of being baulked at sebring by a few ITGT cars recently and years ago...mustangs and camaros (in the Z and the Teg) very frustrating for me and them...

[Fastfred92]

But T3 doesn't allow all the ducting etc. that one can do for IT brakes. Regardless, some folks will chose to run the car. All cars have strengths and weaknesses. Just one of those things factored in the car when classing it, or selecting it to drive.

R
[/b]

Actually I think most touring spec lines for Mustangs ( T1, T2 or T3 ) allow some ducting or duct kit. In T3 now they are allowing the "Bullit" brake upgrades but still not enough. The part I dont understand is why a Ford or GM or whoever builds car that weigh alot and have decent HP but crappy brakes.... I guess that is one of the differences between them and say a Porsche..

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey it's just history repating itself...
The adoption of hydrolic brakes "Juice brakes" went like Chrysler -> GM -> Ford.
Juice Brakes was a major hot-rod upgrade, Not sure of the year, but I think it was post war when Ford did adopt hydrolic brakes. On edit and second thought maybe more like '36.

[seckerich]

Actually I think most touring spec lines for Mustangs ( T1, T2 or T3 ) allow some ducting or duct kit. In T3 now they are allowing the "Bullit" brake upgrades but still not enough. The part I dont understand is why a Ford or GM or whoever builds car that weigh alot and have decent HP but crappy brakes.... I guess that is one of the differences between them and say a Porsche..
[/b]

Simple answer to that question. As a supplier to most of the major auto makers I can tell you that Ford and GM will sell you crap to save a $ while foreign makers will sell the best product for a little more because they know what brand loyalty is. Too late for reality for the big 3 now.

[zracre]

yes it is cheaper to make a gazillion mustangs with econo car brake parts saving a dollar on millions of cars adds up....if it looks good it will sell

[DavidM]

Actually, I think it is highly likely the Mustangs will be in for 2008.

Tristan, no ugly red white and blue Zs! Green and yellow! Green and yellow! Team Things that Break!

I'll probably build a Z32 as well. If willing, let's share info, etc.

Jeff
[/b]

I wonder how much a built VG30DE is going to cost. They're fairly complex engines. Ain't gonna be fun working on these cars with no room in the engine compartment.

Anybody building a Z32 might want to call the guys at Z1 Motorsports. They're some good ol boys out in Carrolton, GA. They do a lot of engine work and have built some pretty bad ass Z32 motors (though mostly of the turbo'ed variety). Plus they have a huge graveyard of Z32s and parts. I went out to their place once. Pretty nice guys. www.z1motorsports.com.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think you will find a decent amount of knowledge on those motors within the GT world. There are a lot of GT2 cars powered by the 3.0L

[Fastfred92]

As a supplier to most of the major auto makers [/b]

Damn Steve, you work? Who knew???? I just guessed you were on Mazda's payroll! :P


Just Kidding

[CMurduff]

When we are talking about the mustang not officially on the list, we mean the 94-95 GT's. I also noticed the 99-04 V6 on there and I think it would be the faster car. Classed 480lbs lighter the earlier 5.0 cars, they have larger brakes on both ends and that version of the 3.8 had 193hp from the factory. The 7.5" axle should live at 240 hp with no problems (they did behind SVOs) and if I remenber correctly are 35-40 lbs lighter than the 8.8 for less unsprung weight. A quick web search turned up full length headers, aluminum pulleys and radiators, watts links, various ring and pinions (for $150.00), spools, lockers and tons of $20 body panels, factory 16X7.5" wheels if 17's are too pricey and several rust free $1000.00 shells. You can literally build a complete rear axle assembly with new pads, rotors, gear and locker for less than a Porsche ring and pinion. I couldn't fathom a guess at how competitive it would be but the V6 Mustang would certainly be the best bang for the buck in the class and be a car to bring in younger drivers.

[Tristan Smith]

I think you will find a decent amount of knowledge on those motors within the GT world. There are a lot of GT2 cars powered by the 3.0L
[/b]

Really? I thought in GT2 all the Nissans had to run the straight sixes. I didn't think the v6 was allowed.

[zchris]

Actually the gt2 guys use the VQ30 that is out of the 95 up maxima. A very different engine from the vg30 in the z32. There were several shops that tried to get the 4 valve vg30 to survive in a race enviroment and could not. They work for drag guys that only rev for short periods of time. Something about the blocks have to much flex for extended periods of high rpm. It will be interesting to see how they survive in ITR trim. It will be a very expensive car to build and maintain.
Chris

[JeffYoung]

I thought the Z32 was a very good SSA car? Did the motor have problems in that application or was it just higher hp versions that did?

[dj10]

When we are talking about the mustang not officially on the list, we mean the 94-95 GT's. I also noticed the 99-04 V6 on there and I think it would be the faster car. Classed 480lbs lighter the earlier 5.0 cars, they have larger brakes on both ends and that version of the 3.8 had 193hp from the factory. The 7.5" axle should live at 240 hp with no problems (they did behind SVOs) and if I remenber correctly are 35-40 lbs lighter than the 8.8 for less unsprung weight. A quick web search turned up full length headers, aluminum pulleys and radiators, watts links, various ring and pinions (for $150.00), spools, lockers and tons of $20 body panels, factory 16X7.5" wheels if 17's are too pricey and several rust free $1000.00 shells. You can literally build a complete rear axle assembly with new pads, rotors, gear and locker for less than a Porsche ring and pinion. I couldn't fathom a guess at how competitive it would be but the V6 Mustang would certainly be the best bang for the buck in the class and be a car to bring in younger drivers. [/b]

Just be ready to replace all the parts mentioned after every race.

[Ron Earp]

Just be ready to replace all the parts mentioned after every race.
[/b]

I doubt it'll need replacing after every race. Last at least two!

Seriously, I too think the V6 SOHC might be an okay race car. The 7.5" can take the punishment, no problem. And the amount of gears, LSDs, lockers, etc. available for cheap $ boggles the mind. Transmission is stout in those cars, but I have not done much engine research on the V6, but I will. Shocks, struts, etc. can be had for pennies and are good aftermarket bits too. It won't break much I don't think if the motor will last. Might be a runner!

Ron

[gran racing]

With the new ITR class, are there any accomodations (or rather exceptions) to the standard IT rules?

One car I'd love to race is the Honda S2000, but within IT rules, the anti-lock brakes need to be disabled. With this car, this causes bigger issues than just having the brakes not lock-up. Out of curosity I spoke with a few other people who race the car (in other classes and sanctioning bodies). With the rules they run, they are allowed to keep the anti-lock brakes but quickly commented that if they were not, there would be some bigger issues. Unfortunately I'm not going to be racing an S2000 anytime soon, but was wondering...

[JoshS]

I asked the same question and was told that the approach to cars like this is to plumb the brake lines around the ABS system. In other words, fully remove it, don't just disable the electronics.

I personally think ABS should be allowed across the board, but hey, that's just me :-)

[lateapex911]

I personally feel that it removes a significant bit of driver talent from the equation, but thats just me.


On the other hand, I can see how the ABS removal requirement could be an inpediment in the gathering of entries. In other words, there might be a part of the population that has major issues overcoming the removal of ABS, and the rulesets insistance on it's removal could be a hurdle too great for them.

One of the attractions, to my eye, of IT, is the ruleset. Like the Goldilocks bear story, not too little, not too much, just right. So having to reengineer brake systems to acheive the ABS removal requirement does leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

SO..........

Blue sky thinking...IF there was an allowance to leave ABS in as an option, how would we go about it to make it fair for everyone??

I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear what others think.

[JeffYoung]

I STRONGLY feel this is path we should not and cannot go down. We'll end up debating endless allowances for this car or that.

Before we even start, let me ask this - what insurmountable issue does the S2000 face with the ABS disconnected? Is it truly insurmountable, or is it just difficult and expensive to do?

If difficult and expensive, then S2000 drivers need to suck it up unfortunately. Changing the rules just for their car is far more dangerous from a global perspective.

[Ron Earp]

Bad move.

It isn't a problem to simply bypass the ABS controller and come straight from the master to the calipers like we do now. Some cars might show an ABS light, some might not. The brakes will work though, and that is what counts. Sure, some will be more complicated than others (just like some engines are, some trannys are, some axles are) but that is the way it is.

R

[Z3_GoCar]

Well Jeff,

Where in the rules does it allow someone to replumb the brake system to remove the ABS drive system. I guess it's the valve that controls the ABS system that's the problem. With the Z3, the stock ecm detect's the absence of the wheel sensor and goes into limp mode, the only way around is to remove the ABS relay. So in a sense I'm rewiring to remove the ABS system, where's this allowed in the rules? WC/Grand Am uses a 50lb penelty for a working ABS system. Might this be an option?