Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: GMs in IT

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    I also wrote a letter a few weeks ago asking to class the C4 and 3.4L Camaro. Don't see any reason why both shouldn't be included in ITR/ITS respectively.

    R

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp
    Earl, how user friendly are they? I haven't poked around them much, but the ones I have looked at seem like a definite "front mid-engine" design. The motor seems to live under the dash between the two occupants. Definitely a slick exterior. And, from the times I spent in the back seat of the 3rd gen cars in the 80s I know there isn't a lot of room there. The Mustang seems like a more usable package although maybe at the expense of handling.
    Ron - sorry, I missed this earlier.

    They're actually pretty user-friendly - the 6 can borrow everything suspension-wise from the 8, so there are plenty of suspension pieces to pick from. Somewhat less for the engine, but still enough to do a decent IT build. And yeah, the 6 sits mostly behind the front wheels, so that helps. And you can tune the OEM computer. I do think it will make 250 HP with a full-tilt build, but that's about it.

    Great brakes - I've done a few track days with mine, and with just HP+ pads it has brakes to spare (at 3500 lbs I would note). The only concern re brakes would be the aluminum calipers - I've heard tales of them deforming under lots of heat. Good brake cooling would be a must I would think. The AS guys talk about replacing front hubs often, so that may be a problem area. And then there's that live axle...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp
    In ITR trim it is considerably lighter, 2815 lbs. Let's say it can't make 2815 lbs and has to race at 2950 , still seems like a good package for ITR. I'd be surprised if they moved it to S, but you never know. S or R, I'd love to see some of them on track. High time to move away from the Mazda Car Club of America.
    Obviously the ITAC agrees. I just don't see anyone in their right mind building one - when you have the choice of a 2,800 lb E46, a 3,000 lb S2000, a 3,050 lb 968, and a 2,950 lb Camaro, I think the Camaro comes dead last every time. I would also love to see one built, but my guess is if you do it will be another one of those 'sentimental' cars guys build, and not full-tilt pro build that will show what it really is capable of. Maybe when the Camaros age out of SSB next year we'll see a few of them migrate to IT.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    I do think it will make 250 HP with a full-tilt build, but that's about it.
    That is some serious power for ITS, even at 3300 lbs weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    Obviously the ITAC agrees. I just don't see anyone in their right mind building one - when you have the choice of a 2,800 lb E46, a 3,000 lb S2000, a 3,050 lb 968, and a 2,950 lb Camaro, I think the Camaro comes dead last every time.
    The thing is, the same, or functional equivalent cars exist in ITS . All of those cars exist in ITS (replace S2000 with Miata, 968 with 944 S) with larger weight differences compared to the Camaro (at 3300 lbs), so using your line of thinking the car would be a last choice car in ITS too.

    Don't you think you might be assigning too large of a performance detriment to the live axle? Of the few cars in IT that use them, most notably in my area the ITB Mustang and ITS TR8, the axle doesn't seem to be a detriment at all. As long as the full rear axle allowances in IT are taken advantage of both chassis are SARRC Champion winners and podium material any weekend in their respective classes. I'm looking forward to using the axle in the Mustang compared to messing around with Datsun 240Z geometry.

    I think a well-built ITR Camaro sporting 250 flywheel hp at 2815 lbs could put a hurting on some ITR regulars.
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 11-14-2011 at 03:13 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default Camaro in ITR

    Ron:

    I'm considering building a 4th Gen Camaro for ITR. I agree with you, I think if done right, it can be a very competitive car.

    Back in the day, 1984, when ITA first started out here in the San Francisco Region, I built a ITA V6 Capri and did very well with it. Although everyone said it couldn't be done, we won some races and usually finished in the top 5 - 10. We would have 20 - 25 car ITA fields with mostly RX3's.

    I sold that car back in 1992 and built an AS Camaro. Raced it for a couple of years and then took 15 years off. I got back on the track last year. I now have the itch to build one more car. This one for my son. I'm thinking a V6 Camaro could be a good build. Plus I want to build a car I can run in the annual NASA 25 hour enduro at Thunderhill Raceway Park in Willows, CA that gets better gas mileage than my AS Camaro gets.

    Stay Tuned!

    Darryl Seefeldt
    AS Camaro #22
    San Francisco Region

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    We have a build pending the weighting of the car. Thanks.
    Another ITR car for the NorthEast! Awesome We will be at 20+ car fields sooner than we know it!

    Stephen

    PS: Andy you should build an ITR car not that ITS miata!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,251

    Default

    Of those choices, the Camaro is the cheaper build, by far, and may make the most power.

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    Obviously the ITAC agrees. I just don't see anyone in their right mind building one - when you have the choice of a 2,800 lb E46, a 3,000 lb S2000, a 3,050 lb 968, and a 2,950 lb Camaro, I think the Camaro comes dead last every time. I would also love to see one built, but my guess is if you do it will be another one of those 'sentimental' cars guys build, and not full-tilt pro build that will show what it really is capable of. Maybe when the Camaros age out of SSB next year we'll see a few of them migrate to IT.
    Also, I agree with Ron on the live rear deal. I don't think there should be a weight break for it. Setup right, it is not, in my opinion, a real detriment. I do not perceive a handling deficit on my car to the best RX7s, 240s, etc.
    Last edited by JeffYoung; 11-17-2011 at 08:34 AM.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    Also, I agree with Ron on the live rear deal. I don't think there should be a weight break for it. Setup right, it is not, in my opinion, a real detriment. I do not perceive a handling deficit on my car to the best RX7s, 240s, etc.
    Interesting, so you do not think the advantage of adjusting rear camber and toe rises above the noise level in car differences.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Point of interest - back in the early "stock car" era of TransAm (early '80s), some Corvette teams petitioned to use solid rear axles because they couldn't get their IRS to work the way they wanted...

    K

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    Interesting, so you do not think the advantage of adjusting rear camber and toe rises above the noise level in car differences.
    I'm sure it probably does.

    But, having driven Jeff's car and my Z back to back (he's done more of that than I have as I don't drive his in races) I feel the differences are negligible, at least at my level of driving.

    I understand that the Z should have an advantage with tire contact patch while cornering, and should be superior in keeping the tire on the racing surface. But in practice, the TR8 doesn't seem to give up anything to the Zs or RX7s in tight corners, or long sweepers.

    I feel (no data) that the independent suspensions would have a greater chance to shine if the surfaces were a bit more undulating or less smooth. But at Roebling Road and VIR, both very smooth tracks, the live axle works well.

    Indeed, the latest Mustang live axle iteration comes from the factory with tri-link and panhard rod. It gets rave reviews even when compared against IRS designs from BMW, Nissan, GM, and others. What's old is new again.

    Interestingly enough, solid axles aren't as heavy as you might think. The 7.5" rear axle, with stock arms and shocks, is lighter than the Z pumpkin, half shafts, batwing lower arms, and uprights. The former assembly I can struggle to move, the latter I have no chance in hell of moving. Maybe Nissan needs to get with the program and put a stick axle in the new Z.
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 11-17-2011 at 10:22 AM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung
    Of those choices, the Camaro is the cheaper build, by far, and may make the most power.
    Agree on the cost part for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung
    Also, I agree with Ron on the live rear deal. I don't think there should be a weight break for it. Setup right, it is not, in my opinion, a real detriment. I do not perceive a handling deficit on my car to the best RX7s, 240s, etc.
    Jeff - out of curiosity, at VIR are you using the curbs going up through the esses (except for the last one at the top of the hill), and going through hog pen? I don't have tons of track time on the Camaro, but from what I've done I just can't imagine those curbs wouldn't play hell with the rear end of the car.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    Agree on the cost part for sure.



    Jeff - out of curiosity, at VIR are you using the curbs going up through the esses (except for the last one at the top of the hill), and going through hog pen? I don't have tons of track time on the Camaro, but from what I've done I just can't imagine those curbs wouldn't play hell with the rear end of the car.
    Yeah, he runs them like most everyone else. Stable and good. Or, it seems as stable as my car did in the same situation.

    http://youtu.be/JWXt8qLsRAY?t=51s
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 11-17-2011 at 04:25 PM.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    Point of interest - back in the early "stock car" era of TransAm (early '80s), some Corvette teams petitioned to use solid rear axles because they couldn't get their IRS to work the way they wanted...

    K
    Ah yes and Group 44 ran a live axel in the TR4A in nationals in the 70ís
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    159

    Default viability of Live axles vs Independent

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    Of those choices, the Camaro is the cheaper build, by far, and may make the most power.

    Also, I agree with Ron on the live rear deal. I don't think there should be a weight break for it. Setup right, it is not, in my opinion, a real detriment. I do not perceive a handling deficit on my car to the best RX7s, 240s, etc.
    While I agree that the live axle is not in itself a detriment, the linkages to it can be. Incidentally, the Live Axle is only one of two designs that accomplish all goals in suspension geometry: constant camber regardless of chassis attitude, whether it is acceleration, braking, or cornering. The other is the De Dion. All others offer compromises under some condition, or the other. Incidentally, as we all know, the give-away with the live axle is of course the unsprung weight. While a De Dion has less unsprung weight, it still has more compared to an Independent Suspension.

    Back to my statement about linkages... All live axle cars do not have the same linkage setup. The Camaro has the best, with the factory torque arm, as demonstrated in AS. The Mustang has to have the worst, with the four arm setup, which inherently binds when cornering, or under hard acceleration (when it doesn't matter). (For those who don't know, these four arms are controlling all longitudinal, and, lateral movement of the chassis...at least that's what we would like to happen.) All solutions except two, modify the bind, but do not eliminate it...just make it happen at a different time. Any bushing material replacement has the potential of increasing the bind...it cannot be eliminated because of the dissimilar arcs of motion created by three different planes of control.

    The two solutions are the aftermarket three link (not four), and the aftermarket torque arm. Unfortunately, the offerings of torque arms for Mustang are enginereed for the 8.8 inch rear, not the 7.5 which the car is produced with. Thus, no aftermarket torque arm for the ITS or ITR V6 Mustang. Also, a Panhard Rod, or Watts Link must be added to provide the lateral location lost when the upper arms are removed...more weight.

    Unfortunately, all solutions to the bind for the Mustang will add weight to an already overweight platform. If it ain't broke...you might find that the car can be driven without the need for additional linkages. I did for years with an ITB.

    Just my two cents worth after dealing with the identical suspension in my '87 Mustang...7.5 rear also.

    Bill
    Bill Frieder
    MGP Racing
    Buffalo, New York

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    When I look at the four link in a Mustang I see the ITA/ IT7. The three link conversion on that works pretty good and has already been accepted as IT legal
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    When I look at the four link in a Mustang I see the ITA/ IT7. The three link conversion on that works pretty good and has already been accepted as IT legal
    Yep, and it does a damn good job on those cars and Jeff's TR8. We're designing our own with the 7.5" in the stang and we have access to some CNC milling in ally. Putting it together in CAD we can design a tri-link setup that is very light and strong, thus minimizing the weight addition. Of course the physical pad/attachment to the car is done with steel. We could do a torque arm for the 7.5" but the weight there is pretty high, even with extensive use of ally. I'm also not convinced the torque arm is ideal.

    Ford's tri-link on the new stangs is light and it works well I'm told. If we could reliably weld bosses on the 7.5" cast housing it'd be ideal, but that piece wouldn't be easy to attach to after the fact.

    Last edited by Ron Earp; 11-18-2011 at 08:21 AM. Reason: Fixt link

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,251

    Default

    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    Interesting, so you do not think the advantage of adjusting rear camber and toe rises above the noise level in car differences.
    Dick/Earl, having driven Miatas, the 240z, the TR8 and Ron's Lola at speed at VIR, CMP, Roebling and others, I've yet to really see where the TR8 is at a serious disadvantage to the others.

    Once we eliminated bind and settled the axle down with a good tri link and panhard setup, the back end does not mover around. I obviously don't get any camber back there, and that hurts some, but as someone pointed out I also don't get toe and camber change as the axle moves.

    By subjective feel, the only place the TR8 seemed at a disadvantage to the Z and the Miatas before the tri-link was Hog's Pen. But now even there I pull most good RX7s and Z cars out of the hole -- watch the vid Ron posted (and that was BEFORE tri link).

    Earl, yes, I can run the curbs at VIR fine. The car doesn't like the channelled FIA curbs at CMP, which I understand are coming to VIR for next year, yay, but not sure any of our cars really do.

    I think with our 150-180 whp cars, the live rear just isn't that much of an issue.

    Bill, no off the shelf fix for me either, but it was not hard to have one, a good one, fabricated given how open the rules are for a live rear axle with the 'traction arm" allowance.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    159

    Default Curb jumping Aussies!!!

    Want to know what happens to a live axle when jumping curbs??? Just watch ONE V8 SuperCar race from Australia, and you will see EVERY car jumping curbs. They are mandated a live axle, even though the chassis are originally built with IRS, and mandated to run a spool at all events.

    When the cars jump the curbs, the wheels have liters of air under them. The effect is minimalized by the spool which delivers 100% power to the opposite (still in contact with the pavement) wheel.

    Quite the lesson in drivetrain dynamics...

    Jeff,

    Sometimes the live axles "bend" in service and acquire some camber... I'm not sure the mechanisms are fully understood....

    But the lack of camber and toe changes surely make the live axle a good choice if one can tolerate the expected unsprung weight.

    Finally, I believe the lack of toe and camber change, in addition to the ability to harness the axle torque reaction, gives the live axle an advantage in traction out of the corners with especially high horsepower cars. The new generation Mustang is certainly competitive with the competition, all of which have IRS...and its corner exit is impressive. Only Porsche is better, and that probably is because of its greater rear weight percentage.

    Bill
    Bill Frieder
    MGP Racing
    Buffalo, New York

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •