Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: August 2013

  1. #1

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Thanks Pam!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".

    The Boxter looks interesting, although at the same weight as the S2K I'm not sure it will be a better pick. Is the flat 6 expected to make more than the 25% power gain?

    The Tiburon looks great, on paper at least. That one has me checking the want ads....anybody want to buy a nice Camaro?
    Last edited by erlrich; 07-10-2013 at 09:18 AM.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    We're way past time for allowing double listings (a la BMW E36). Let the competitors decide, not those on top of the ivory towers.

    But I ain't gonna waste my breath requesting it again. - GA

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".

    The Boxter looks interesting, although at the same weight as the S2K I'm not sure it will be a better pick. Is the flat 6 expected to make more than the 25% power gain?

    The Tiburon looks great, on paper at least. That one has me checking the want ads....anybody want to buy a nice Camaro?
    it's being requested, it was a bit of a debate in the first place, we put it to the members. its not just about power, it's also about achievable weight. we think this car can get to ITR weight, and it overall seemed a better fit there, so there it went. if membership comes in and says "no S!!!" then we can move it. being above 2700 lbs (thicker cage) in either listing makes this decision easier. anything that crosses that threshold when changing classes (by gaining weight) makes us prefer to stay in the faster class so that any existing builds or cars don't need to re-cage.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Hopefully the cars will be listed in the right blocks when final. Currently the way it shows in the prelim, the Boxter has ITS listed above it and the Mitsubishi Lancer has ITB above it in the chart. Should be ITR and ITA, correct?
    Ralf
    ITB Golf GT

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".
    No kidding. If they want to move that car to S then that'll open up reprocessing for a number of 190-200hp cars to move to S. I'll be requesting some myself.

    R

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralf View Post
    Hopefully the cars will be listed in the right blocks when final. Currently the way it shows in the prelim, the Boxter has ITS listed above it and the Mitsubishi Lancer has ITB above it in the chart. Should be ITR and ITA, correct?
    The Lancer goes to B and the boxter to R. I've already called in the mitsu, missed the boxter. Thanks for letting us know.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ugggg, I had requested the RX8 to be classified through 2009. Since it was only done through 2008 should I resubmit it?

    Also Since Lancer is allowed the alternate "OZ package" do you think this sets a precedence and something like the Mazdaspeed package on the RX8 would be allowed if asked?

    Stephen

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StephenB View Post
    ugggg, I had requested the RX8 to be classified through 2009. Since it was only done through 2008 should I resubmit it?
    Without the VIN rule, is it relevant in reality? Is there a difference between the two?

    - GA

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    yup. much more reliable tranny!

    Stephen

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Maybe the omission was intentional...the car is only 4 years old. Do we still have the 5-yr-rule in IT...?

    - GA

    Edit GCR 9.1.3.A: "Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible."

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rocket City, Alabama
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    No kidding. If they want to move that car to S then that'll open up reprocessing for a number of 190-200hp cars to move to S. I'll be requesting some myself.

    R
    +1 to that
    Paul Ballance
    Tennessee Valley Region (yeah it's in Alabama)
    ITS '72
    1972 240Z
    "Experience is what you get when you're expecting something else." unknown

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    Maybe the omission was intentional...the car is only 4 years old. Do we still have the 5-yr-rule in IT...?

    - GA

    Edit GCR 9.1.3.A: "Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible."
    2013 not eligable current year? I am guessing that eventhough 2014 model years are being released they don't count as a "current year" until january 1st. My mistake.
    2012 not eligable
    2011 not eligable
    2010 not eligable
    2009 not eligable

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StephenB View Post
    Also Since Lancer is allowed the alternate "OZ package" do you think this sets a precedence and something like the Mazdaspeed package on the RX8 would be allowed if asked?

    Stephen
    IIRC the OZ package was an actual trim level choice. OZ wheels and a spoiler. I think they wanted it to look like the EVO but had the mundane running gear.

    So no, it sets no precedent for dealer installed options that are not currently allowed in the rulebook.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".

    The Boxter looks interesting, although at the same weight as the S2K I'm not sure it will be a better pick. Is the flat 6 expected to make more than the 25% power gain?

    The Tiburon looks great, on paper at least. That one has me checking the want ads....anybody want to buy a nice Camaro?
    No, we ran the Boxster at 25%. Are you taking about the request to move the ITR Camaro to S? I think that was a combination of attainable weight and HP. It's weight in S would have been ridiulously high. The TSX has a stout curb weight to start with and seems to fit better in S, and may not have made the R weight.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    No kidding. If they want to move that car to S then that'll open up reprocessing for a number of 190-200hp cars to move to S. I'll be requesting some myself.

    R
    Not just about HP, also about achievable weight.

    But as stock curb weights and achievable race weights rise, so too will the "stock hp range" of cars in each class. So look not only at stock hp, but curb weight before submitting the request.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    IIRC the OZ package was an actual trim level choice. OZ wheels and a spoiler. I think they wanted it to look like the EVO but had the mundane running gear.

    So no, it sets no precedent for dealer installed options that are not currently allowed in the rulebook.
    yup. 15x6 OZ wheels and some decals, a spoiler, etc.. still the lame 2.0L SOHC. the raliart cars that came later got the more potent 2.4L DOHC motor, rear discs, and a bunch of other upgrades. no more precedent than a miata M package. nothing to see here.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StephenB View Post
    2013 not eligable current year? I am guessing that eventhough 2014 model years are being released they don't count as a "current year" until january 1st. My mistake.
    2012 not eligable
    2011 not eligable
    2010 not eligable
    2009 not eligable
    if there hadn't been the upgrades to the car in 2009 we mightacoulda slipped it in, but it needs more review anyhow to see if it counts as an upgrade / same line or new line. the fact that it's an 09 made it easy to cut it off there and take time to review the changes vs. IT philosophy.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    yup. 15x6 OZ wheels and some decals, a spoiler, etc.. still the lame 2.0L SOHC. the raliart cars that came later got the more potent 2.4L DOHC motor, rear discs, and a bunch of other upgrades. no more precedent than a miata M package. nothing to see here.
    Thanks, I had no idea. I know the MAzdaspeed RX8 package was just cosmetic but it does allow more cooling to the oil coolers so I would obviously like to have it allowed, however it was a dealer option and I don't think offered as a "trim level" from mazda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    if there hadn't been the upgrades to the car in 2009 we mightacoulda slipped it in, but it needs more review anyhow to see if it counts as an upgrade / same line or new line. the fact that it's an 09 made it easy to cut it off there and take time to review the changes vs. IT philosophy.
    Yup, transmission is better and it has some cosmetic enhancements. Rear diff has a different cover that allows it to cool better as well. other than that nothing performance wise... oh wait the computer is harder to hack and make power from it so you would want a 2004 computer, after 2005 you have "extra" obstacles to overcome

    Thanks for the responses, I appreciate it. I know that Steve E. is a great resource if you need any detailed info.

    Stephen

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
  •