Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: GMs in IT

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Post GMs in IT

    With the Mustang discussion last week I noticed that we don't have much GM participation in IT. However, I think there are a couple of places where the General can come out and play.

    The 1993, 1994, 1995 4th Generation Camaro has an engine option that would fit well into ITS, the 3.4L 90 degree V6. Stock the motor is rated at 160hp and 200 ft-lbs of twist. Looks like it'd drop into ITS at around 2580 lbs before any adders for torque, so maybe a mid-2600 spec weight.

    Another GM platform that Mr. Young pointed out is the C4 Corvette circa 1984. 205 hp, 290 tq, it should fit into ITR with no problem. Great motor, good brakes, reasonably light chassis that will probably need ballast at a spec weight of around 3100-3200 lbs.

    I think I'll write a letter and ask to have both of these cars classed.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,381

    Default

    While on the ITAC I lobbied the CRB for a new faster IT class which would fit the M3 and the C4 Corvettes. Unfortunately only the '84 is likely to fit decently into ITR and that's not a very desireable package compared to the later cars.
    Josh Sirota
    ITR '99 BMW Z3 Coupe

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshS View Post
    While on the ITAC I lobbied the CRB for a new faster IT class which would fit the M3 and the C4 Corvettes. Unfortunately only the '84 is likely to fit decently into ITR and that's not a very desireable package compared to the later cars.
    The 1984 C4 fits into ITR. While maybe not as desirable as later model C4s, it'd be possible to class it as is in ITR. Over 51000 1984 examples were built so there is plenty of race car fodder out there for cheap prices. Probably even get a leather jacket and gold chain to go with it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    2,942

    Default

    No love for Fieros, Citations or Chevettes?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joeg View Post
    No love for Fieros, Citations or Chevettes?
    Au Contraire, I love Fieros. I still think a full on 100% Megasquirted built to the max Fiero could do some damage in ITA. Still haven't seen a 100% build yet, or close to it.

    Those other two, no, no love there despite the common DNA with the Fiero.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Look at the intake manifold/ports on the Fiero and you might change your mind. cB
    Chuck Baader
    White EP BMW M-Techniq
    I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    With the Mustang discussion last week I noticed that we don't have much GM participation in IT. However, I think there are a couple of places where the General can come out and play.

    The 1993, 1994, 1995 4th Generation Camaro has an engine option that would fit well into ITS, the 3.4L 90 degree V6. Stock the motor is rated at 160hp and 200 ft-lbs of twist. Looks like it'd drop into ITS at around 2580 lbs before any adders for torque, so maybe a mid-2600 spec weight.
    The only problem with that (well, not the only, but the major problem) is the same problem its younger cousin has in ITR, but worse; the weight. All the 4th gen cars all weigh about the same - ~3300 lbs. Add a cage and a driver, and you'll need to drop almost 1000 lbs to get to the ITS weight.

    I'm pretty sure the ITAC & CRB don't agree (we should find out this month), but I think those cars should be classed in the lower class at a heavier weight, i.e. the 3.8 should be in ITS at ~3200 lbs and the 3.4 should be in ITA at the same weight. Even then I think they would both be mid-pack cars.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    The only problem with that (well, not the only, but the major problem) is the same problem its younger cousin has in ITR, but worse; the weight. All the 4th gen cars all weigh about the same - ~3300 lbs. Add a cage and a driver, and you'll need to drop almost 1000 lbs to get to the ITS weight.

    I'm pretty sure the ITAC & CRB don't agree (we should find out this month), but I think those cars should be classed in the lower class at a heavier weight, i.e. the 3.8 should be in ITS at ~3200 lbs and the 3.4 should be in ITA at the same weight. Even then I think they would both be mid-pack cars.
    I'm not a 4th generation Camaro guru and I'm assuming your not quoting marketing/magazine/web curb weights, but the Mustang hasn't played out as badly as predicted. With the stang it is more a question of dropping few hundreds of pounds, not many hundreds of pounds. Any chance of a real-world V6 T5 Camaro in street trim coming in at 3100-3200 lbs with a light driver sitting in the seat?

    I haven't been asked but I don't think a 3.8L V6 Camaro in ITS at 3XXX lbs would be that attractive. It'd have the juice though. I'm not much up on ITA, but I wouldn't fancy my chances with a 3XXX lbs weight in ITA either. I think I'd rather race a 3.4L V6 Camaro a couple of hundred pounds over spec weight in ITS than race it in ITA at its curb weight. But, there again, I don't have much Camaro experience. Is the CRB/ITAC considering re-classing the Camaro?

    I do like the Camaro classed in ITR though at around 2800 lbs. That weight seems obtainable, the chassis has some good features, and the motor should be able to make power needed for the class. Bummer that the 3.4L ITS version has rear drum brakes - I swore those off when I sold the Z.
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 10-05-2011 at 04:00 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    I'm not a 4th generation Camaro guru and I'm assuming your not quoting marketing/magazine/web curb weights, but the Mustang hasn't played out as badly as predicted. With the stang it is more a question of dropping few hundreds of pounds, not many hundreds of pounds. Any chance of a real-world V6 T5 Camaro in street trim coming in at 3100-3200 lbs with a light driver sitting in the seat?

    I haven't been asked but I don't think a 3.8L V6 Camaro in ITS at 3XXX lbs would be that attractive. It'd have the juice though. I'm not much up on ITA, but I wouldn't fancy my chances with a 3XXX lbs weight in ITA either. I think I'd rather race a 3.4L V6 Camaro a couple of hundred pounds over spec weight in ITS than race it in ITA at its curb weight. But, there again, I don't have much Camaro experience. Is the CRB/ITAC considering re-classing the Camaro?

    I do like the Camaro classed in ITR though at around 2800 lbs. That weight seems obtainable, the chassis has some good features, and the motor should be able to make power needed for the class. Bummer that the 3.4L ITS version has rear drum brakes - I swore those off when I sold the Z.
    Ron - not a guru either, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn...err, scratch that - I did take my car ('02, V6, T5) across the scales at Summit a couple of years ago just to see what I would have to lose to get to ITR weight. With my 250 lb backside in the seat, and about 1/4 tank of gas (~4 gals) it came in at 3535 lbs. That was in full street trim - spare tire, jack, full interior, etc.

    The V6 currently runs in SSB at 3300 lbs, and the V8 version is classed at 3530 lbs in both AS and T2. To the best of my knowledge, other than things you can change in IT trim (springs, sway bars), the suspension, diff, and brakes are identical on both V6 and V8 versions. I know 3300 lbs sounds heavy to us in IT-land, where 2600 lb cars are considered pigs, but I think that car will work at the higher weight. That said, I really don't think this will be a great car in either class; I think Andy summed it up well...something like "you can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end it's still a pig".

    And yeah, I put in a request to have the V6 Camaros & Firebirds moved to ITS months ago; I just received an email that the ITAC & CRB have reviewed the request, and the decision should be in the next FT.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    I know 3300 lbs sounds heavy to us in IT-land, where 2600 lb cars are considered pigs, but I think that car will work at the higher weight. That said, I really don't think this will be a great car in either class; I think Andy summed it up well...something like "you can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end it's still a pig".
    Time to get some pigs in IT. What are they making these Camaros out of, Tungsten?

    I bet the car can make ITR weight with some serious work. Dick got his RX7 to make ITA weight, against all the naysayers, and it was apparently a lot of work. I can get Dercole's ITR stang to minimum weight and I think he's convinced of that too.

    I can't get my ITS stang down to weight, but I think I can get close enough to weight that it'll be a threat in ITS, at the expense of many man hours of work, but it might just be possible. The Camaro could be a similar situation in ITR.

    So in ITS trim the 3.8:

    200x1.25x12.9 = 3225 (no "torque adder" applied, does it get one?). Dang ol. No doubt the 3.8L can make some power, but that is some serious weight to haul around. About 600 lbs heavier than the RX7, more than 700 lbs heavier than the Z. I've always liked those GM 3.8L engines. Powerful workhorses that didn't complain much. Man ol man, talk about parts aplenty.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 10-05-2011 at 09:16 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Letter ID Number: #6637
    Title: 1984 C4 Corvette Classification
    Class: ITR
    Request:
    I would like to request the classification of the 1984 C4 Corvette. Specs are below needed to classify the car per the ITCS:

    1984 Chevrolet Corvette
    205hp@4300 / 290 lb-ft@2800
    Curb weight 3200lbs
    V-8 OHV
    Bore and Stroke: 101.6mm x 88.4mm
    Intake valve: 1.94”
    Exhaust Valve: 1.50”
    Compression Ratio: 9.0:1
    Wheelbase: 96.2”
    Wheel sizes: Base: 16”x8.5” Z51 package: 16”x8.5”F, 16”x9.5”R
    Transmission ratios: 4 speed, 2.88, 1.91, 1.33, 1.00
    Brake size: 292.1mm F&R (11.5”)
    Independent front and rear suspension with transverse leaf springs.

    Using the classification process, I would see it playing out like this:
    205 x 1.25 x 11.25 = 2882.8 rounded to 2885lbs.

    If you care to research these cars, you will find out that they share the ‘cross-fire’ injection with the 1983 C3 L83 cars. Horrible for revs but decent torque. Pre tuned-port-injection. Single year on a single spec line.

    We have a build pending the weighting of the car. Thanks.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  12. #12
    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

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
  •