June Fastrack Out

[77ITA]

I don't really see a problem with the RX-8 considering all the other ridiculous "calculations" in ITR.

I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.

I agree, Greg. It's great to see the cars classified (as they're obviously not going to do anything in SSC any longer), but with personal experience on the subject I can't understand the weight of the R/T and ACR either. If anything but equal in weight, the Magnum engine cars (R/T and ACR) could use to be a bit lighter than the 1st generation DOHC cars due to their poor handling characteristics. At least in IT trim competitors can put some real springs under the car and fix what hindered them so badly in SSC.

[madrabbit15]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

[JeffYoung]

The bolts of which you speak -- carb, cam, intake, better heads -- are illegal.

[tnord]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

i think the M3 makes more power stock than the dumpy V8 iterations that are being considered, AND they gain more from IT builds than their domestic counterparts, AND the M3 has better brakes, etc.

[Ron Earp]

i think the M3 makes more power stock than the dumpy V8 iterations that are being considered, AND they gain more from IT builds than their domestic counterparts, AND the M3 has better brakes, etc.

This is 100% correct and outlined in the Pony Car proposal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

There has been much concern over the power potential of the V8 cars submitted for ITR. The AS adhoc was polled along with at least 2 prolific small-block Chevy builders - each were given the limits of the rules and each confirmed that 'process power' was all that could be reasonably expected. AS guys have to remember that they get cams, intake manifolds, uprated carbs, different heads in some cases, etc. Without this stuff, it's just another handicapped pump like we all run (stock TB, intake manifold, cams, stock weight pistons...).

A 215hp V8 at 25% increase is about 269 crank hp. A 240hp E36M3 at 30% increase is over 310hp.

The issue at hand is how to account for 300ft/lbs of torque on these V8's. The proposal in hand suggests a +100lb adder. The debate rages on as to that 100lbs in terms of effectiveness as we have nothing with that kind of torque potential on the books now to draw conclusions from IIRC.

[JeffYoung]

You have a TR8.....last time on the dynojet I made about 197 wtq, or about 230 or so at the crank. Probably as high as any car in ITS, if not higher (Greg, close your eyes, you are not allowed to read that).

My torque peak is at 3500 rpm and drops from there though, much like the ITR V8s. I suspect a lot of that torque is not entirely usable, but it is still a big issue.

200 lb adder? I wouldn't get all "RX8" over that.....lol.......

There has been much concern over the power potential of the V8 cars submitted for ITR. The AS adhoc was polled along with at least 2 prolific small-block Chevy builders - each were given the limits of the rules and each confirmed that 'process power' was all that could be reasonably expected. AS guys have to remember that they get cams, intake manifolds, uprated carbs, different heads in some cases, etc. Without this stuff, it's just another handicapped pump like we all run (stock TB, intake manifold, cams, stock weight pistons...).

A 215hp V8 at 25% increase is about 269 crank hp. A 240hp E36M3 at 30% increase is over 310hp.

The issue at hand is how to account for 300ft/lbs of torque on these V8's. The proposal in hand suggests a +100lb adder. The debate rages on as to that 100lbs in terms of effectiveness as we have nothing with that kind of torque potential on the books now to draw conclusions from IIRC.

[madrabbit15]

Thank you Andy for adding the main point of my concern. TORQUE. We roadrace and torque means a hell of a lot, I think the RX8 folks would agree, its not just HP numbers. You have to account for torque numbers too low or high. 300 lbs of torque better add a lot more than 100lbs. Most of V8s being considered are in the low 200s around 215hp, from a least a header, exhuast and open intake, you are going to gain a ton. Thats not even considering IT prep, which we all know the manufacturing tolerances were/are way more crude than a bmw from the factory. I know, I know I am not a AS engine builder, but 260hp and 300tq better make for one heavy ITR car.

P.S. If anyone in the world has a dyno graphs from a 95M3 making 310 hp in IT trim, I would do unmentionable, questionable things to see it.

[tnord]

Thank you Andy for adding the main point of my concern. TORQUE. We roadrace and torque means a hell of a lot, I think the RX8 folks would agree, its not just HP numbers. You have to account for torque numbers too low or high. 300 lbs of torque better add a lot more than 100lbs. Most of V8s being considered are in the low 200s around 215hp, from a least a header, exhuast and open intake, you are going to gain a ton. Thats not even considering IT prep, which we all know the manufacturing tolerances were/are way more crude than a bmw from the factory. I know, I know I am not a AS engine builder, but 260hp and 300tq better make for one heavy ITR car.

P.S. If anyone in the world has a dyno graphs from a 95M3 making 310 hp in IT trim, I would do unmentionable, questionable things to see it.

don't discount the importance of where that torque is made.

and comparing it to the M3 isn't really all that valid from where i sit. high torque is most useful on tracks with quick short bursts between corners so the high-strung stuff like the S2000 doesn't have time to wind out and use it's top end to it's advantage.

so even though the torque is an advantage coming off the corner, these wallowing pigs will have significantly lower apex speeds than other cars in the class, which negates *some* of the low-end advantage.

[lateapex911]

..... but 260hp and 300tq better make for one heavy ITR car.
.

'Cuz you know they handle like Miatas and stop like ALMS cars...

...just sayin'

(and there are other cars with great power, great tq, that handle AND brake, and weigh 3250....the 300ZX)

[JeffYoung]

Of which, I just bought one. Former T2 car said to have a dyno sheet at abut 225 whp and 250 wtq with just an exhaust.........

'Cuz you know they handle like Miatas and stop like ALMS cars...

...just sayin'

(and there are other cars with great power, great tq, that handle AND brake, and weigh 3250....the 300ZX)

[Andy Bettencourt]

P.S. If anyone in the world has a dyno graphs from a 95M3 making 310 hp in IT trim, I would do unmentionable, questionable things to see it.

Those are crank numbers based on 240*1.3, not whp numbers.

[buldogge]

I'm only gonna post once about the '95 M3, cuz let's face it...nobody give a rat's ass.

You guys are leaving out several factors re: this car and using a 30% gain as was done with the 325 is ludicrous.

The '95 ('95 only not 96-99 3.2) uses the same injectors as the 325 and ALL heads are identical (ignoring sensors) for 93-00 325, 328, M3, MZ3....severe limiting factor there.

The HFM (MAF) is identical as well...limiter #2 for M3's.

Trackday M3's (that you read about all over the intraweb) making good power have Schrick cams, 24# injectors (not 17.5#), and a 3.5" HFM.

All that remains for the IT car is a .040 bump.

The only other difference is the cams and the .5l.

Other than that you have slightly larger brakes (frankly we don't have brake issues anyway).

Also remember that we are talking about a flying brick with no aero allowed and not some of the newer (more) slippery designs of the S2000 and RX.

Oh well...

Those are crank numbers based on 240*1.3, not whp numbers.

[JeffYoung]

We discussed this car when we were working on ITR originally. I'm torn on it too but have little technical knowledge about it -- thanks for the below.

Can you give us what you think is a realistic IT gain percentage for the car and run the numbers on it to see what ITR weight would be? And then do you think you or anyone else would build the car at that weight?

Also, are you saying that the 96s and up have more power potential due to larger injectors?

I'm only gonna post once about the '95 M3, cuz let's face it...nobody give a rat's ass.

You guys are leaving out several factors re: this car and using a 30% gain as was done with the 325 is ludicrous.

The '95 ('95 only not 96-99 3.2) uses the same injectors as the 325 and ALL heads are identical (ignoring sensors) for 93-00 325, 328, M3, MZ3....severe limiting factor there.

The HFM (MAF) is identical as well...limiter #2 for M3's.

Trackday M3's (that you read about all over the intraweb) making good power have Schrick cams, 24# injectors (not 17.5#), and a 3.5" HFM.

All that remains for the IT car is a .040 bump.

The only other difference is the cams and the .5l.

Other than that you have slightly larger brakes (frankly we don't have brake issues anyway).

Also remember that we are talking about a flying brick with no aero allowed and not some of the newer (more) slippery designs of the S2000 and RX.

Oh well...

[Ron Earp]

r, but 260hp and 300tq better make for one heavy ITR car.

And it does, around 3200-3300 lbs.

Ron

[quadzjr]

Looking at joshes previous response.

Who said they could get the MR2 down to the ITA weight (legally)?

Not to argue against them.. I would like there secret, without cutting into one of the many bulk heads on the car.

[erlrich]

Looking at joshes previous response.

Who said they could get the MR2 down to the ITA weight (legally)?

Not to argue against them.. I would like there secret, without cutting into one of the many bulk heads on the car.

When the move came out in Fastrack I did an informal poll of our MARRS ITA drivers as to their current weights, I got responses of:

• 2290 w/155 lb driver
• 2360 w/150 lb driver (windows still in)
• 2350 w/210 lb driver

The secret - a really light driver?

[lateapex911]

Looking at joshes previous response.

Who said they could get the MR2 down to the ITA weight (legally)?

Not to argue against them.. I would like there secret, without cutting into one of the many bulk heads on the car.

Have you taken out the fuel tank and the surrounding shielding and insulation? i'm told there's quite a bit of weight there. And do you have your rear glass in? That's a bit heavy as well,

[seckerich]

Here is a little comparison to get some perspective on the weight differences.

2765 2980
------ ------
215 X = 231 Rear wheel to be competitive.