ITR New Cars and Class Cleanup

[JeffYoung]

Guys, a couple of things need to be done with ITR. They include:

1. A clean up of the existing ITCS listing of ITR models. A miscommunication within the ITR committe regarding when we had to have the spreadsheet finalized, with the fault on my side, led to us having to submit an only "almost complete" spreadsheet. There is, if you look, some information missing for some models. We need someone to take a pass at filling that data in -- or more appropriate someone(s) because I will volunteer for that thankless task. Anyone else? If there are 3 or 4 of us, we should be able to divide it up and get it done fairly quickly.

2. Doing the "second wave" of cars. These would include the RX-8, the V8 ponys, and the 928. These were all cars that were proposed for ITR and initially rejected by the committee. There is no guarantee they will come in, but if you have an interest in one of those cars, let me know and let's get some proposals written.

I do have a rough RX8 proposal written with some dyno data from a pro shop to support it that I will share with anyone who asks (Steve Eckerich and Jim Cohen have seen it already). I'm not a Mazda guy. Hell, I hate Miatas and I hate those damn rotaries that drown out the sweet sound of British V8 thunder, but the RX8 seems like a no brainer for the class.

V8 ponys there will be opposition so what I would envision is that a group of us who are in favor would write the proposal and then put it out for comment with the hopes of convincing some of the "antis" that the car will work in R. We would then take those comments and submit to the ITAC.

The 928 is a bit of an orphan. I have some interest in classing it but am looking for a Porschephile who may put some emotion into the effort. I have some information from Milledge about the car that I collected last year that can serve as a basis for the proposal.

Let me know.

Thanks guys.

[Cobrar05]

Jeff,

Street stock V8's need a place in the SCCA to race. That needs to be recognized. These cars have not come factory with 302/305 carburated engines in going on 15 years. Yet the only place in SCCA to race these cars in AS with that required rules package.

This is a strong and fertile field of potential race cars that the SCCA is excluding to their detriment.

I know I am an advocate for my race car. But, I see that I am running laps times in the same ballpark at the ITR cars that weight just about the same weight.

Jeff, anything I can do. Let me know.

[JeffYoung]

Honestly, a Cobra is probably too much potential for ITR. We are looking at the lower hp 302/305 motored cars, Fox Body and F-body in the low 200s stock hp. That would be within the ITR performance envelope. Getting much past that and you have a potential for a class killer, which has to be avoided at all costs.

We (the people who supported this) want to give the V8 ponys a place to race in IT other than AS or the old ITGT. There will be opposition though, especially if we start looking at the 350 and 351 powered cars or any of the later cars that made 250+ hp.

With all due respect to you, your car, and your racing program, you are new to this and I think that Cobra R of yours, once you start to get experience and development in it, will be quite a bit faster than the cars classed in R.

But I'm all ears, let me know what you think.

[JoshS]

I do have some reservations about the pony cars. ITR times are very similar to T2 times, and despite what you sometimes read, the more recent pony cars are not all that far off the pace in T2, even carrying excessive weight. I'm afraid that they might have to weigh too much in IT trim to be reasonable. Does it seem appropriate to class a 200hp V6 Camaro and a 300hp V8 Camaro in the same class?

I have also run some numbers on the RX-8 and have the same concern. I think cars carrying 300+ lbs of ballast, or running full interiors to make weight, are probably not properly classed.

Still, Jeff, I'll work with you on this and I'll be your ITAC liaison if you like.

EDIT: just saw your response about the high-hp pony cars, so it looks like we're on the same page there.

[JeffYoung]

I think you would be surprised by the actual dyno hp shown for the RX8, even with race mods. In many ways, the thing is not far off a good S car. Mazda had a huge debacle on their hands when they advertised 250 hp (crank) -- the car made quite a bit less than that and you may know that Mazda offered to buy back cars that were sold with that advertisement.

It looks to me that a stock RX8 dynos out in the 165 to 175 whp range, with 190-200 being about the best you see with Grand Am legal mods. At that hp range, you are looking roughly at a 2700/2800 lb car, or about the same as an unrestricted 325is which makes equivalent power and far more torque.

Let the games begin..............

[Ron Earp]

With respect to Mustangs the initial proposal was the 94-95 5L cars, not the 351 powered Cobra R that Cobrar05 races. The 94-95 cars wearing E7 head castings are limited in the sort of hp they can make when running through the factory intake and MAF. I've written quite a bit about that in the "R" forum and can pull some of that info out if needed. Remember, these cars produced 215hp - 23hp less than the highest hp R.

I don't think there will be a way to get the 4th Gen F Bodies in as the lowest hp V8 they had was 285hp on a 5.7L block. I might be wrong on that since I'm not a GM guy, but I think that is how it shakes out. Now we might be able to get some of the third generation F bodies but in those days GM didn't seem to be putting many manual trannies in cars. I think there were some 305 5 speeds made though in some narrow year bands.

Also, early Fox body 5Ls should be considered, despite the drum brakes they all wore up until 1994 (except for the 1993 Cobra R, SVOs, and 1995 Cobra R if memory serves).

There are a lot of guys that will build a Ford Mustang V8 to race even if it isn't a front contender. I know I will, this Porsche 944 S2 will be sold in a flash and I'll be building a Stang.

Ron

[Cobrar05]

I am an advocate for an idea. That is that cars like NASA American Iron class cars should have a place to race in the SCCA.

It could just be that cars like mine and of that era are just not going to be SCCA cars and I should quit fighting it and just race NASA.

There were 7 ITR cars that started any SARRC race in SEDiv last season. Only one of those ran more than two weekends. You have someone asking to race here.

[JeffYoung]

Rob, I understand, I really do. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the marque, for racing and for the SCCA, and especially your participation in this forum.

It's just that having fought the war on the ITR committee over the V8 ponys once, I can tell you with 100% assurance that any Mustang/Camaro with over 230-40 hp stock has no chance of being classed in ITR. It will be deemed outside the performance envelope for the class, and frankly I have to agree.

American Iron is a good series. I would hate to lose you to that though, but for the Cobra R, other than ITO/E, or a new class entirely, not sure what to do with it.

Do you have any interest in racing a Fox body or SN94(?) Mustang in ITR if we get them in?

We all knew when we started ITR that it would start slowly. It takes a while to build cars. I don't expect next year to be much better, but by 2009/2010, we hope R participation will rival S and A.

[Cobrar05]

The main problem that I have with ITO/ITE is that I am VASTLY underpowered to play in that class as its constituted.

At the ARRC I had the only ITO car that was under 500hp and I am WAY under 500hp. My car is stock.

I have a second car for this season, a '99 Cobra 4.6L. I doubt that there is a 3rd race car in my future and if there was I would guess that it would have to be a S197 car for magazine purposes.

I support your idea. I am just not sure that I can create another ride for it. I think I would be more likely to give in and buy a small bore to race or just give in to concentrating on NASA.

NASA by the way will let us run our V8 cars in their enduros. Please don't take that as threat or something. I will still keep trying.

Seems we have a shot at racing CCPS next season. That would be a step in my direction that I would appreciate.

[JoshS]

Rob,

Someday, we'll have the authority to create another IT class, faster than ITR. These newer faster pony cars, M3s, etc, will be good candidates.

For now, not sure what to tell you.

[Ron Earp]

The main problem that I have with ITO/ITE is that I am VASTLY underpowered to play in that class as its constituted.
[/b]

You might be now, but in ITO the sky is the limit for your motor. You've got a 351 block so you could go out fairly serious on a stroker. Or toss it and build a big block, or power adder, etc.

ITO is going to be a good class for a lot of non-tube frame cars that don't fit in "normal" IT classes.

Ron

[Cobrar05]

Correct. Its about an unlimited thing. I am not in that tax bracket. I also have a car with a lot of race history and cutting 300 lbs out of it and ripping the interior up for the kind of master cylinder brake pedal proportioning valve set ups that those guys are running is just not an option for me.

My car is a street stock IMSA GS/Former T1 champion car and it just has to stay that way. The fast lap in ITO at VIR in Oct was a 2:04. It was a 1:33 at Road Atlanta at the ARRC. We ran 1:39 in the enduro.

We are just not in that game. It may be a great class for guys that can really build up a car, but I just can't do that.

[JeffYoung]

I would humbly suggest that six seconds off the pace your first year out is not bad. Believe me, I was worse off.

[Bill Miller]

Guys, a couple of things need to be done with ITR. They include:

1. A clean up of the existing ITCS listing of ITR models. A miscommunication within the ITR committe regarding when we had to have the spreadsheet finalized, with the fault on my side, led to us having to submit an only "almost complete" spreadsheet. There is, if you look, some information missing for some models. We need someone to take a pass at filling that data in -- or more appropriate someone(s) because I will volunteer for that thankless task. Anyone else? If there are 3 or 4 of us, we should be able to divide it up and get it done fairly quickly.


[/b]

That's very gracious of you Jeff, but it certainly wasn't your fault (and not quite the way it went down).

[dj10]

I think you would be surprised by the actual dyno hp shown for the RX8, even with race mods. In many ways, the thing is not far off a good S car. Mazda had a huge debacle on their hands when they advertised 250 hp (crank) -- the car made quite a bit less than that and you may know that Mazda offered to buy back cars that were sold with that advertisement.

It looks to me that a stock RX8 dynos out in the 165 to 175 whp range, with 190-200 being about the best you see with Grand Am legal mods. At that hp range, you are looking roughly at a 2700/2800 lb car, or about the same as an unrestricted 325is which makes equivalent power and far more torque.

Let the games begin.............. [/b]

Other things to consider Jeff: Brakes, Aero's and with the Motec units in Grand Am are they making 200 hp all the up to 8300 rpm?

[JeffYoung]

Dan, I'll send you the dyno plot if you wish.

The torque advantage on the BMW is huge. I think that the RX8 and the 325 at nearly equivalent weights, with the 325 having slightly more whp and way more torque balances the RX8's slightly better aero and weights.

But I am wide open to any discussion on this. Obviously, we want to get it right.

Thanks on statement Bill, much appreciated, but it is true. Andy gave Ron and I the spreadsheet to complete by a certain date, and I misunderstood that he was saying it needed to be finalized and ready for publication by that date. My bad.

Thanks for the banana at the Enduro by the way. Sounds crazy, but a lifesaver. I was illin'. And good to meet you too, finally!

[seckerich]

Other things to consider Jeff: Brakes, Aero's and with the Motec units in Grand Am are they making 200 hp all the up to 8300 rpm?
[/b]

Get Jeff to send you the dyno sheets Dan. We actually lost HP with a header. With the side exhaust ports on the RX8 it is like a street port already. The sheets Jeff has were what we made on the Dynojet as well as sheets from the engine dyno. Check with any of the rotary experts and they will back it up. The rotary has always been treated "different" in the process because of known gains. Not true for the RX8 For comparison the E46 328/330 cars were at 2875# and the RX8 at 2650# in Grand Am. Close racing everywhere. You have enough data with these cars in their same prep to make a good decision.

[dj10]

Dan, I'll send you the dyno plot if you wish.

The torque advantage on the BMW is huge. I think that the RX8 and the 325 at nearly equivalent weights, with the 325 having slightly more whp and way more torque balances the RX8's slightly better aero and weights.

But I am wide open to any discussion on this. Obviously, we want to get it right.

[/b]

Sure Jeff, send me the data, I'd like to see it. Did you mean better aero & weights or aero & brakes? What weight would the rx8 be running at?

Thanks

[JeffYoung]

Sorry, meant aero and brakes. Not 100% sure on brakes though. Have to check that.

E-mail me at [email protected] and I'll send you the RX8 proposal and the dyno sheet.

[seckerich]

Sorry, meant aero and brakes. Not 100% sure on brakes though. Have to check that.

E-mail me at [email protected] and I'll send you the RX8 proposal and the dyno sheet.
[/b]

Brakes are single piston front and rear.