ITR Integra Type-R

[JIgou]

I've come across what I think is a minor glitch in the ITR rules.

How I discovered it: I'm helping out with the prep of a 1998 Integra Type R for enduro racing.

In looking at online copy of the GCR, I see it only lists the Type-R as 1998-2001 - I'm assuming the printed version is the same. But there was a Type-R made in 1997.

Before I send the ITAC/CRB a quickie note saying "Please add the 1997, as it was the same car and must have been missed in the initial class setup," can anyone shed any light about why the '97 might not have been included? Any other details I should add in my note to help expedite the process?

Thanks!

Jarrod

[lateapex911]

Hmmm. I'm not the Honda expert, but I'd be willing to bet that it was an oversight when the class was created. Lots of cars, (V8s? no V8s?) other rules to discuss and a big concept to sell to the brass kept the ITR committee's attention spread thin. Are there any other differences from 97 to 98?

[Xian]

Aside from a rear hatch window wiper and slightly different nose/headlights there weren't any changes that I know of (I used to own a 2001 Type R). The headlights/nose thing were changed across the board on all 98 Integra's and they are all on the same "spec line". I don't see any reason why the 97 can't be included and modify the spec to 97-2001 (although there were no Type R's imported during 99).

Christian, who sometimes forgets how much "old skool JDM, yo" stuff he remembers.

[Z3_GoCar]

I was only pereferally involved with ITR, and am not a Honda/Acura expert. But weren't the heads custom ported on the earlier type-R's? I seem to remember this causing a policing issue with head porting.

James

[dj10]

I was only pereferally involved with ITR, and am not a Honda/Acura expert. But weren't the heads custom ported on the earlier type-R's? I seem to remember this causing a policing issue with head porting.

James

Wow! Factory ported heads....stock. There has to be some way to comfirm this before anyone would say yea or na I would think.

[JeffYoung]

Someone brought this up during the discussion on classing the car, but it wasn't why the 97 was "left off." It was merely an oversight. I think a letter is in order; at the same time I am doing a "clean up" of some of the gaps in the ITR ITCS (with the help of Josh Sirota and Earl Richards) and can simply add it in that way and see what they ITAC says.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wow! Factory ported heads....stock. There has to be some way to comfirm this before anyone would say yea or na I would think.

"...The ports were also improved as each Type R engine is hand ported and polished by Honda's best and most skilled engineers. This allowed the port radius to exactly match the valve seat face allowing for almost no restriction of air flow. "

http://www.team-integra.net/sections...p?ArticleID=35

[Greg Amy]

Yup: *ALL* Acura Integra Type R's have hand-ported heads. That was one of the main sticking points for keeping them out of ITS, and one of the (several ) initiators behind the push for ITR...

[dj10]

"...The ports were also improved as each Type R engine is hand ported and polished by Honda's best and most skilled engineers. This allowed the port radius to exactly match the valve seat face allowing for almost no restriction of air flow. "

http://www.team-integra.net/sections...p?ArticleID=35

Great article AB, Thanks! WOW! What an engine. This looks like a maxed out engine, how could you improve upon this? I can't believe the revs of this. Hey if it fits in ITR bring it on. To bad it's a front wheel drive, I wouldn't trade my E46 M3 for one mind you, but it someone built one of these for the track, I'd love to take it around for quite a few laps. Do all the type R's have the B18c specR engine?
Good question though, how do you police this? But on the other hand how could you improve upon this engine even if you did more port work? I bet you'd probably reduce HP & torque if you messed with it. Wouldn't you think?

[Greg Amy]

Do all the type R's have the B18c specR engine?

Yup.

...how could you improve upon this engine even if you did more port work?

Probably wouldn't be able to. I've seen the inside of one of these, and they are SUH-WEET. 'Bout the only thing you could do is take away the very few compromises for the street, noise and emissions. I'd disassemble and pinpoint-blueprint it while adding 1/2 point compression (race gas ONLY), open up the exhaust as wide as possible to let it breathe (and play right at that 103dB edge), and dyno-tune the ECU for better top end.

I'm pretty confident it will NO WHERE make the power upgrades the IT process calls for. Best you can hope for is power from lower drag, slightly better breathing, and more compression, but that's about it.

Too bad they're pricey; I'd be tempted to try one. Hmmm, maybe we can find a wrecked-car drivetrain and rear wing to drop into Jeremy's ITS GS-R...

GA

[JeffYoung]

Others disagree, but I just don't see how the ITR and the Celica GT-S will be able to compete in R. No reason to exclude them, but they are down, down, down on power and torque and don't seem to be able to make any more.

[dj10]

Others disagree, but I just don't see how the ITR and the Celica GT-S will be able to compete in R. No reason to exclude them, but they are down, down, down on power and torque and don't seem to be able to make any more.

I'm sure if they are down on power they would also be down on weight. Can they run their weight and be competitive? Aren't the Honda's going faster in ITS from the 150#'s they were able to lose under the weight ruke change?

[JeffYoung]

The Celica, and less so the ITR, are in ITR are pretty light weights -- might be hard for them to get there.

But the real issue is torque. This isn't like the ITS RX7 that is down say 50 ft lbs to the class leaders. These cars will be down 100 ft lbs and MORE to a Z32 or a Supra or a 3.0 BMW. Not sure the process adequately deals with that, but I have no real dog in the fight. I just wouldn't build one; I hope others do.

[dj10]

The Celica, and less so the ITR, are in ITR are pretty light weights -- might be hard for them to get there.

But the real issue is torque. This isn't like the ITS RX7 that is down say 50 ft lbs to the class leaders. These cars will be down 100 ft lbs and MORE to a Z32 or a Supra or a 3.0 BMW. Not sure the process adequately deals with that, but I have no real dog in the fight. I just wouldn't build one; I hope others do.

From all of this, getting back to the original subject of adding the year 1997, I see no reason not to add it. So I guess the ITAC should put in for the correction if they agree.

[Greg Amy]

...I just don't see how the ITR and the Celica GT-S will be able to compete in R.

Hmmm, I wonder...

Fastest ITR time at the ARRC was 1:39.108, Taylor Robertson. Fastest ITA Integra time was Kevin Ruck's 1:43.021 (fastest ITA time was Bob Moser in the CRX, 1:42.388).

Take that ITA car, drop 85 pounds, and add probably 75 horsepower (~+50%!) and bigger brakes...you don't think that car can drop up to three seconds off its lap times...? Granted, ITR will probably continue to get faster, but how much so? Best ITS time was 1:39.5, and they *just now* surpassed the lap records of the E36 in the "old" ITS trim (which is now in ITR...)

At the IT Fest '07, compare Huffmaster's best Sunday time of 1:43.067 to Joe Moser's 1:43.077! What do you think an uncorked E36 would do there...?

Food for thought.

[spnkzss]

Hmmm, I wonder...

Fastest ITR time at the ARRC was 1:39.108, Taylor Robertson. Fastest ITA Integra time was Kevin Ruck's 1:43.021 (fastest ITA time was Bob Moser in the CRX, 1:42.388).

Take that ITA car, drop 85 pounds, and add probably 75 horsepower (~+50%!) and bigger brakes...you don't think that car can drop up to three seconds off its lap times...? Granted, ITR will probably continue to get faster, but how much so? Best ITS time was 1:39.5, and they *just now* surpassed the lap records of the E36 in the "old" ITS trim (which is now in ITR...)

At the IT Fest '07, compare Huffmaster's best Sunday time of 1:43.067 to Joe Moser's 1:43.077! What do you think an uncorked E36 would do there...?

Food for thought.

I appologize for the hijack, but I've been wondering this all year. How come the BMWs barely got under the ITS times which didn't happen till the end of the year. Where they ITS cars just that well prepared? If so, aren't the same fundimentals in the S car the same in R?

Watching that kinda concerns me since I'm switching from C to A with the same type of chassis. Hope not to be doing C times in A

[JamesB]

Rob, I think your issue is less of one. We already know that chasis will work well in A.

[dj10]

Hmmm, I wonder...

Fastest ITR time at the ARRC was 1:39.108, Taylor Robertson. Fastest ITA Integra time was Kevin Ruck's 1:43.021 (fastest ITA time was Bob Moser in the CRX, 1:42.388).

Take that ITA car, drop 85 pounds, and add probably 75 horsepower (~+50%!) and bigger brakes...you don't think that car can drop up to three seconds off its lap times...? Granted, ITR will probably continue to get faster, but how much so? Best ITS time was 1:39.5, and they *just now* surpassed the lap records of the E36 in the "old" ITS trim (which is now in ITR...)

At the IT Fest '07, compare Huffmaster's best Sunday time of 1:43.067 to Joe Moser's 1:43.077! What do you think an uncorked E36 would do there...?

Food for thought.

GA, I'll let you know in a few months when I get to Mid O. But I'm pretty damn sure it will faster than that. I think I'm finally on track with my suspension for this year.:cool:

[JeffYoung]

Yup, food for thought. Think about this though. The uncorked ITS BMW 325s were, what, 150 to 200 lbs more than an ITR 325? Plus, times were down this year right, due to the repave?

I suspect that when (no offense to Dan or Taylor or any of the other present ITR guys) fully developed ITR cars arrive on the scene, they will be several seconds at worst faster at Road Atlanta than the existing ITS record.

I co-drove an ITR 2.8 BMW Z3 at the 13 hour. I wasn't particularly fast, but my co-driver was, best lap of 2:16 or about the same as the 944S2 from teh week before. That was with an entirely stock motor and LOADS of suspension development left to do. Point? All R cars still have a ways to go to be fully developed I think.

[dj10]

Yup, food for thought. Think about this though. The uncorked ITS BMW 325s were, what, 150 to 200 lbs more than an ITR 325? Plus, times were down this year right, due to the repave?

I suspect that when (no offense to Dan or Taylor or any of the other present ITR guys) fully developed ITR cars arrive on the scene, they will be several seconds at worst faster at Road Atlanta than the existing ITS record.

I co-drove an ITR 2.8 BMW Z3 at the 13 hour. I wasn't particularly fast, but my co-driver was, best lap of 2:16 or about the same as the 944S2 from teh week before. That was with an entirely stock motor and LOADS of suspension development left to do. Point? All R cars still have a ways to go to be fully developed I think.

No offense taken Jeff. To correct you there is only a 85# difference from ITS (2850) to ITR (2765). I beleive a couple of seconds faster than ITS, depending on the track, not a few. IMO