ITR Car Counts

[Ron Earp]

So, the vast majority of the ITR cars running are the old ITS 325is?

How many non-BMW 3 series ITR cars do we have?

[Z3_GoCar]

I yanked out the restrictor, took out some weight and stuck on 17" wheels and ran ITR in Sopac region last year, but I was the only one, so I moved back to ITS for this year. Maybe next year I may run up in Northern California some. Or maybe if you guys want to come down I'll change back and we can have a North/South shootout. I'd send a picture, but cant figure how te reduce tha size of the file.

I'm planning on joining you John, that's why I got the steel hood instead of repairing the carbon hood. As for the pictures, I just uploaded them into a gallery here and they're automatically resized to 600x600.

James

ps. The Z3 is in fact an e-36 car, so we're just adding to the numbers of the evil-umpire

[mlytle]

in addition to the above identified marrs mudbuggies, there are two more in the region.
sam asinugo and john counts - both ex-its 325's

there is also a z3 vert down in the carolinas - ricky thompson

[tnord]

944 S2, 325is, integra type R, and i think an S2000 being built in MiDiv.

<----waiting for the new MX5.

[Andy Bettencourt]

<----waiting for the new MX5.

So was I Trav...but knowing what I know about what they weigh, I think it's an ITS car at about 2675. In ITR it would have to weigh about 2335 with the super-low power compared to others in class...and using our Koni Challenge car as a barometer, it could never make that weight with driver.

[tnord]

So was I Trav...but knowing what I know about what they weigh, I think it's an ITS car at about 2675. In ITR it would have to weigh about 2335 with the super-low power compared to others in class...and using our Koni Challenge car as a barometer, it could never make that weight with driver.

why not? i thought the "body in white" weighed the same as the 99-05 cars?

it would just be plain odd to have a miata overweight and at the top of the power curve in any class. i would like to see it in ITR to help the class take off, but if it's going to end up as a 'tweener, that might not happen. that would really be a shame.

of course.....that just opens the door for the next generation of SM. :eek:

[Andy Bettencourt]

I really don't think it's a bad car in ITS at that weight.

[RedMisted]

As some of you may already know, I've got a 1999 3.8L Mustang that I'm racing in ITE this year. If all goes well and I like the car's potential for ITR, I may take it into that class in '09.
To answer Ron's question regarding car counts, I know at least 5-6 different ITR drivers competed in regionals at Nelson Ledges in 2007. And some of the names listed in this thread participated there.

[TAC]

Your all invited to run at the I.T.SPEC*tacular August 8th-10th. Dan Jones and Christian Bernhardt are planning on being there.

4 Hoosier tires for 1st place..... ( minimum 3 cars participating in the class)
3 races...................................( top three get medals for the afternoon races)
2 hrs. of track time
1 overall weekend champion per class..... ( Trophies for the top three positions)


BTW, 2nd place gets 2 Hoosier tires ( minimum of 5 cars participating in the class)

Todd Cholmondeley
Cincinnati Race Chairman

[Ron Earp]

So was I Trav...but knowing what I know about what they weigh, I think it's an ITS car at about 2675. In ITR it would have to weigh about 2335 with the super-low power compared to others in class...and using our Koni Challenge car as a barometer, it could never make that weight with driver.

Andy, aren't these cars 2L 4 bangers variable valve timing rated at like 166 hp? Seems to me the cars will have a lot of potential for ITS. The BMW motor was only 0.5L smaller, and naturally a lot of things are different between to two, but you wouldn't want to create a "325-like" situation in ITS again. I've clearly not investigated the particulars with the motors and so on, just looking at the surface.

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, aren't these cars 2L 4 bangers variable valve timing rated at like 166 hp? Seems to me the cars will have a lot of potential for ITS. The BMW motor was only 0.5L smaller, and naturally a lot of things are different between to two, but you wouldn't want to create a "325-like" situation in ITS again. I've clearly not investigated the particulars with the motors and so on, just looking at the surface.

Ron

Ron,

The problem with the E36 was that it never went through the process. It's a totally different situation. If it were to run through right now for ITS, it would weigh no less than 3220lbs.

To me, the more standard output per liter, the LESS potential the car has in IT trim (see S2000) but that is neither here nor there. Using the 166hp and 25%, it could be a good choice if it can make the power. Grand Am used stock weights and hp numbers for the MX-5 in ST and ended up having to spec in open cams for it to compete...and it's still not there yet so I would assume 'normal' gains in IT trim.

Looking at all the cars classed using the process, I can't think of one off the top of my head that is an overdog but YMMV. There will be great drivers in great cars, but we have to seperate that...

[tnord]

Ron,

To me, the more standard output per liter, the LESS potential the car has in IT trim (see S2000) but that is neither here nor there. Using the 166hp and 25%, it could be a good choice if it can make the power. Grand Am used stock weights and hp numbers for the MX-5 in ST and ended up having to spec in open cams for it to compete...and it's still not there yet so I would assume 'normal' gains in IT trim.

i agree with this in principle, but you can't put it into practice as that's a slippery slope. the casualties of this (S2000, P-cars, maybe the new miata) are worth the benefit of keeping complete overdogs out of the class.

i'd give it time on the power development of the NC, Daniels has only had so long to figure out how to cheat the thing up.

it'd really be a shame to have to miss the boat on the NC cars, but as i said, that'll just give new life to the next generation of SM.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's why I said it was neither here nor there. We use 25% when we don't have a pile of alternative data as has been documented on this site. I can tell you our 200 mile stock MX-5 made 139whp. We added the open intake (not legal for IT as it is a psuedo ram-air unit outside the engine bay) and header/exhaust and got to 153WHP.

Someone would have to make 170whp in order for this car to fit perfectly. That is another 17whp (21 crank) in overbore, B&B and ECU. Possible? I think so but much more? Doubt it.

[tom_sprecher]

Sorry to get OT but according to offical SCCA numbers for 2007 there were 193 entries in ITR.

[Ron Earp]

That's why I said it was neither here nor there. We use 25% when we don't have a pile of alternative data as has been documented on this site. I can tell you our 200 mile stock MX-5 made 139whp. We added the open intake (not legal for IT as it is a psuedo ram-air unit outside the engine bay) and header/exhaust and got to 153WHP.

Someone would have to make 170whp in order for this car to fit perfectly. That is another 17whp (21 crank) in overbore, B&B and ECU. Possible? I think so but much more? Doubt it.

You are at 153 rwhp with out opening the motor and no ECU tuning, including using that variable valve timing? No blueprinting? The ram air doesn't work on the dyno anyhow, and you know how creative you can be there for air pickup.

Heck, just boring that block with a torque plate and truing it up would probably pick up 2-3hp, ditto by fiddling around with the rings, valve job, balancing, and so on.

While you see the glass half empty, I see it half full. I'd say if a top notch IT build with full on ECU and so on can't find 17 rwhp I'd be extremely surprised.