June Fastrack Out

[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]

2. No to IT going National (hooray!), yes to finding ways for IT cars to migrate to limited prep production (yeah right! too funny).

So, the way I read this in the FastTrack is that the SCCA is committed to the same ol' same ol' for the next three years. We'll have Regional and National races, the Boreoffs will continue to be populated by vehicles with bugeyes, and cars with 50 year old suspensions will still be guaranteed a place to get their race on and be seen on TV.

Yay progressive SCCA.

[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.

[tnord]

you didn't read very carefully Ron.

check the minutes from the BOD, and the task force report that follows. there's very significant change documented in there over the next 3yrs. i bet after that 3yr period, IT going national will happen after people have had some time to get used to the idea.

[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]

One last observation that is going to sound like a knock on the ITAC, but really is just an observation.

The goal -- a noble one -- was to make the RX8 guys a bit unhappy, and the non RX* ITR guys (their competitors) a bit unhappy.

Interesting, but I've not heard a single ITR guy complain about the 2980 weight being too low........

[dj10]

Some of the letters we got from guys winning in the E36s with junkyard motors defending their builds was hilarious)

Jake, don't you know that all BMW drivers both in ITS & now in ITR ALL HAVE JUNKYARD ENGINES and that's the turth!

[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.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, that wasn't "the goal"...the goal was to class it utilizing the IT process.

We are at the mercy of the manufacturers...this has been a cornerstone of the process from day one, and we went into it knowing that, in some cases, the numbers could be bogus. We have a correction method in case there is damage done to the class by such bogus numbers.

But... we knew going in that if we were going to question every rating, then we'd need an entire policy and procedure on how to handle and test that, which is frankly beyond the scope of the club.

Just for giggles, lets say, for discussion, that he stock hp rating is not negotiable.
What number, and what math would those who think the car is heavy come up with?

[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.

[GKR_17]

Interesting, but I've not heard a single ITR guy complain about the 2980 weight being too low........

And what would that accomplish? The math is reasonable, and the process hasn't been compromised. 2980 is about 100 lbs lighter than I wanted, but I'm willing to wait and see. The rest of my team (who are very concerned, even at 2980) don't post here frequently.

Grafton

[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.

[GKR_17]

RX8 has been proven to be about 8% in full IT build with Motec M600 and 4 years of tuning. 10% would be safe and can be backed up by just about any reputable tuner in the country.

You're contradicting your own data. You can either claim low stock hp, or low gains, but not both.

The dyno sheets I saw showed 14% gain after only intake and exhaust work. There should be plenty more in the ECU.

[JeffYoung]

Either:

I would say use 232 stock hp (which is what Mazda advertises now AFTER upgrades to the ECU).

I would say use a 10% factor to account for what appears to be pretty clear evidence the car doesn't respond to IT "work."

That gives you 232 * 1.10 * .1125 -100 = 2771....

or

232*1.15*.1125 -100 = 2900

[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.

[its66]

You're contradicting your own data. You can either claim low stock hp, or low gains, but not both.

The dyno sheets I saw showed 14% gain after only intake and exhaust work. There should be plenty more in the ECU.

Grafton,
This isn't questioning you, but if that dyno sheet is publicly available, I'd like to see it. Taking ITR out of the equation, and not being a smart A$$, I'd like see what actually works on these. I have one as a daily driver, and would love to find 32 more HP to enjoy.

Thanks.

[Ron Earp]

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

And it does, around 3200-3300 lbs.

Ron