Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: ITS Camaro

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    I'd like to buy one of these things and try. I'm not a Chevy guy at all, but it'd be interesting to see what could be done with one.

    Aw snap, $750 for one in my town and on sale too!! "Must go buy this Sunday"

    http://raleigh.craigslist.org/cto/4065302668.html

    I bet $400 cold cash gets me a bitching Camaro. Put it on the lift, get some beer, call the boys and take that thing apart.
    "... The reason why I'm selling it is that I want to buy a honda."

    Probably going to ITB.

    K

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    2,942

    Default

    I don't know...he's got to look at the cat.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    The listed weight is based on stock hp remember, and 25% gain

    If you see some of the gains with the 3.4 that other large displacement ITS motors have seen (i.e. 40-50% or perhaps even more) then you are good to go because either you are competitive at the higher than listed weight, or the listed weight gets moved up if the ITAC gets asked to reweigh the car based on known power.

    So the kicker here is the 3.4. If it can make 195-200 whp at 2700-2800 lbs, it will be competitive. Over that, gravy.
    This would/could be the saving grace for either the 3.4 or 3.8. Since it doesn't impact the street legality I am still working to see what kind of power the 3.8L motor will make.

    Which begs the question, is there a generally accepted estimate for how much of the 25% expected IT gains come from bolt-ons & tuning, versus extensive motor work (b&b, bore, comp bump)? I've always had the impression you could get more the half of the expected gains from just intake/headers/exhaust/tuning, but I have no data to back that up.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Finding a 3.4L BitchingMaro with a five speed and sans T-tops isn't as easy as I thought. That is to say, I thought it'd be done in three or four minutes, but that was an underestimation on my part.

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    Which begs the question, is there a generally accepted estimate for how much of the 25% expected IT gains come from bolt-ons & tuning, versus extensive motor work (b&b, bore, comp bump)? I've always had the impression you could get more the half of the expected gains from just intake/headers/exhaust/tuning, but I have no data to back that up.
    I do not think an estimation could be made. Since IT is relatively restrictive you must take advantage of every aspect of the rule set. All the "little things" sum up to create meaningful gains. And, your "bolts ons" have to be critically evaluated. The "bolt on" headers that exist for domestic V6 engines (most any engine for that matter) will not be ideal for your IT-build. Time and money must be spent on optimizing an exhaust system. And there are many aspects of the engine that follow this pattern. Given that it is a odd-ball engine in the GM lineup don't expect much information to be available and go into it knowing you will have to perform most of your R&D on your own. That's part of the fun though.

    And as fun as that is, we've seen more performance gains in the Mustang from chassis tuning and development. The motor's midrange is great, that doesn't hurt at all, but our recent work has been focused on being able to apply throttle early out of corners and it is starting to pay off. I bet the Camaro could be even better in this department because it appears that the weight distribution will be better out of the box than the stang.
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 10-16-2013 at 10:21 AM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erlrich View Post
    This would/could be the saving grace for either the 3.4 or 3.8. Since it doesn't impact the street legality I am still working to see what kind of power the 3.8L motor will make.

    Which begs the question, is there a generally accepted estimate for how much of the 25% expected IT gains come from bolt-ons & tuning, versus extensive motor work (b&b, bore, comp bump)? I've always had the impression you could get more the half of the expected gains from just intake/headers/exhaust/tuning, but I have no data to back that up.
    And I don't think there is any. My experience with ITS motors is with the Mustang, the L series Datsun motors, and mine, and to a lesser extent the 1.8 Miata.

    Each saw different gains in different areas. The Mustangs see huge gains from tuning as the factory timing and fuel curves are pitiful, my car needed the short runner FI intake and a good exhaust to make any power, the L motors see big gains on the xhaust side, and Miatas need to rev to make power.

    You won't really know until you dig into it.

    HOwever, the 3.8 GM motor (that's the Buick V6 right?) is a pretty well known quantity. I'd think you should be able to get a rough estimate of what it will make in IT trim.

    I was able to do so with the Rover V8 as was Ron with the Mustang, which is why I made the decision to invest in an FI motor and why Ron built the Mustang.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Ron:

    Here is your Camaro. The situation is it's here in Sacramento, CA.

    http://sacramento.craigslist.org/cto/4117658568.html

    Darryl

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    That one would be a good starting place. But building it from NC would be a hassle. I'm not coming up with any locally that are worth a damn.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    I can't find a Camaro.....but I found some FireChickens!

    http://roanoke.craigslist.org/cto/4117800400.html

    What's with all the Camaro and Firechicken owners having to sell TODAY?

    http://greensboro.craigslist.org/cto/4098482591.html
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 10-16-2013 at 09:13 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    I see the FireChicken 3.4 V6 isn't classified in ITS. Why is that?

    Darryl

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Probably becAuse when I wrote the letter I didn't think to ask and the ITAC didn't consider it either.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brighton, Mi. 50 west of Detroit, 20 miles north of Ann Arbor.
    Posts
    18

    Default

    From my AS experience, the Firechicken has better aero than the Camaro... And yes, they can be made to handle.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    lack of the pontiac is easy to fix. just write a...

    Ron put central FL on your radar, if you can find one, we'll figure a way to get it to you. I'm headed to the ARRC in a couple of weeks...

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Fort Mill, SC
    Posts
    328

    Default

    http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-s...gIndex=1&Log=0

    Here you go ron it has pimpy dodge nitro yellow green paint job and its lowered!
    1987 ITS RX-7
    2014 Ford Focus ST
    Currently borrowing tow vehicles!!

    Central Carolina Region

    STEELERS SIX PACK!!

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    206k on the clock, from Georgia, and a dayglo green paint job.

    I wonder how many condom wrappers, french fries, gum wrappers, and 9mm brass one will find upon removal of the interior?

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    sounds like a party! take bets, pass out gloves, tear into camaro. beer was made for things like this.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    That car looks good on paper, and then I look at one and I despair. What a piece of ugly ass American plastic turdmanship.

    No, I do not want.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Jeff:

    You just need to look at one in the right color done up in racing graphics. On the other hand, split pea green would sure fake out the competition.

    Darryl

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    That car looks good on paper, and then I look at one and I despair. What a piece of ugly ass American plastic turdmanship.

    No, I do not want.
    You just need to see one done right:
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    That's pretty hot.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    That's pretty hot.
    Yeah, now if we could just get the flares, spoiler, hood, and 18X10 wheels approved for ITR, I would build mine in a heartbeat
    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
  •