June Fastrack Out

[seckerich]

Here is a little comparison to get some perspective on the weight differences.

2765 2980
------ ------
215 X = 231 Rear wheel to be competitive.

[GKR_17]

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.

The sheets I have, I got from Jeff Young. I believe Jeff got them from Steve Eckerich. Steve was not happy when I got them, which I can completely understand since he and I are not in the same camp regarding this car. Steve probably knows as well as anyone what works, so I'd start with him.

Grafton

[GKR_17]

Either:

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

The SAE changed the measurement method before that number was released.

[Ron Earp]

The SAE changed the measurement method before that number was released.

This is correct. I do remember reading about that last year and how some cars would be affected. Was an article in Car and Driver as I recall. Many cars saw a slight reduction in hp with the new method.

Ron

[its66]

GKR,
Thanks

[seckerich]

The sheets I have, I got from Jeff Young. I believe Jeff got them from Steve Eckerich. Steve was not happy when I got them, which I can completely understand since he and I are not in the same camp regarding this car. Steve probably knows as well as anyone what works, so I'd start with him.

Grafton

At the time Grafton I did not have permission to release them to anyone but the ITAC. I was upset that I allowed them to go further. I will be more than happy to fax whatever sheets you want to look at now.

Sheets I provided to ITAC (or so I was told)
196.68 rwhp on dynojet in full Grand Am trim (motec, exhaust, etc.
I have seen some at 203-205 but those were not backed up on our system
Highest I know of verified by GA was 203.27 rwhp
Torque seems to run at 140-145 with the sheet I provided at 140.87

Stock brand new RX8 173.25 whp (same dyno) Sorry do not have TQ number handy.

Same information I provided to ITAC

Makes no difference now.
I challenge anyone to provide a dyno sheet showing more in IT trim or any trim short of turbo and porting. You will not find one.

ITAC went heavy on this car because they were afraid it would upset the balance in the class. Many of the current ITR cars are less than full prep and it was feared we would build a bunch of 10/10ths cars and come out and start winning. This would drive away those running now. Time will tell if anyone builds them. Only one now is the one Speedsource did for Buzz Marcus in florida running ITO.

[Knestis]

I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.

Process weights for both new listings...

The older DOHC car may have gotten some "real world data" help since there's been a lot of "common wisdom" swirling around the difference between it and the SOHC version for ages. If we started from scratch on the one that's 130# lighter, it would end up the same now if in fact the stock power ratings are identical, since the technologies involved ask for he same multiplier.

K

[JoshS]

Either:

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

We're classing a 2004 RX-8, not a 2008 RX-8. It had 238hp.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, I think Mazda initially said north of 250 right? Should we use that?

Or should we use the Mazda corrected numbered of 238?

That was then again corrected for essentially the same motor by SAE down to 232?

Don't play games man, that's just silly.

We're classing a 2004 RX-8, not a 2008 RX-8. It had 238hp.

[tnord]

hang around SM long enough, and you're bound to spend time around a dyno as well. pay attention, and you can learn some things.

all of this back and forth about who has seen what dyno pulls is somewhat trivial. any dyno operator worth a darn can make any car produce any amount of power he chooses. so, if you really want to start arguing the merits of 197 vs 203 hp, some parameters of each need to be outlined. what type of dyno each was on would be a start. what correction factors were applied would be useful also. and when you really get down to it, which pull each of these numbers are from.

i don't know a lot about rotaries, but i do know they generate an awful lot of heat. heat tends to not be helpful for things like air intake temps, and with all the electronic gadgetry on modern cars, and the sensitivity of rotaries to running lean, i could forsee there being a meaningful drop in power when heat soak starts to occur. fan or no fan, open or closed hood, it just doesn't simulate real world conditions. sitting here mulling all this over since it's a slow day at work, i could see this as being a problem when trying to race dynos.

[erlrich]

Sheets I provided to ITAC (or so I was told)
196.68 rwhp on dynojet in full Grand Am trim (motec, exhaust, etc.

Steve - does Grand Am allow any work that IT does not?

[JeffYoung]

Now this is very true, and one of the reasons that I kind of threw up my hands on the dyno data (admittedly after I submitted the proposal).

You appear to have a bell curve of RX8 stock dyno data with the low end as low as 155 (sick cars obviously) rising through the 160s to about 170 and then down to a few in the 180 range.

THen you have some evidence that a correctable ECU issue "fixes" this for the RX8. Add this on top of the general unreliability of dyno data.

But then you have loads of 1/4 mile times slips all in the mid 15s....

And then you have anecdotal evidence of my third cousin seeing one lay a wheel 30 feet long.....

Maybe after all of this teeth gnashing, a lot by me, the ITAC did the right thing. Stick with known numbers and run the process.

I do think the 232 number is the number to use though. SAE corrected, and accurate, for the Renesis. Does this mean in 2013 when the 2008 becomes eligible we have it on a separate line at 80 lbs less?

[buldogge]

I'm only gonna post once about the '95 M3, cuz let's face it...nobody give a rat's ass.

You guys are leaving out several factors re: this car and using a 30% gain as was done with the 325 is ludicrous.

The '95 ('95 only not 96-99 3.2) uses the same injectors as the 325 and ALL heads are identical (ignoring sensors) for 93-00 325, 328, M3, MZ3....severe limiting factor there.

The HFM (MAF) is identical as well...limiter #2 for M3's.

Trackday M3's (that you read about all over the intraweb) making good power have Schrick cams, 24# injectors (not 17.5#), and a 3.5" HFM.

All that remains for the IT car is a .040 bump.

The only other difference is the cams and the .5l.

Other than that you have slightly larger brakes (frankly we don't have brake issues anyway).

Also remember that we are talking about a flying brick with no aero allowed and not some of the newer (more) slippery designs of the S2000 and RX.

Oh well...

Those are crank numbers based on 240*1.3, not whp numbers.

[lateapex911]

Oh, how I love Fastrack release time! Off to work on the race car..if #$%@&$# JEGS would get my order right!

[JeffYoung]

I hear ya man. My crankcase evacuator kit just showed up......a day after I found the section in the main GCR making it illegal....

Oh, how I love Fastrack release time! Off to work on the race car..if #$%@&$# JEGS would get my order right!

[tnord]

Maybe after all of this teeth gnashing, a lot by me, the ITAC did the right thing. Stick with known numbers and run the process.

it really is unfortunate that it turned out this way for the RX-8 and S2000 as they could've been staples for the class.

and no matter how truthful someone may be, i just don't think you can accept lobbying....i mean data......from someone with a conflict of interest.

[Ron Earp]

I do think the 232 number is the number to use though.

232, 238, won't make much difference.

238 232
----- = ----
2980 X

Solve for X.....and X is 2904 lbs

Well, 80 lbs, not bad but with the resolution of IT I can't see that making or breaking the car. This ain't Production.....but, on the other hand I'm not evaluating the car to build for ITR so I'm relatively insensitive to the issue.

[JeffYoung]

We discussed this car when we were working on ITR originally. I'm torn on it too but have little technical knowledge about it -- thanks for the below.

Can you give us what you think is a realistic IT gain percentage for the car and run the numbers on it to see what ITR weight would be? And then do you think you or anyone else would build the car at that weight?

Also, are you saying that the 96s and up have more power potential due to larger injectors?

I'm only gonna post once about the '95 M3, cuz let's face it...nobody give a rat's ass.

You guys are leaving out several factors re: this car and using a 30% gain as was done with the 325 is ludicrous.

The '95 ('95 only not 96-99 3.2) uses the same injectors as the 325 and ALL heads are identical (ignoring sensors) for 93-00 325, 328, M3, MZ3....severe limiting factor there.

The HFM (MAF) is identical as well...limiter #2 for M3's.

Trackday M3's (that you read about all over the intraweb) making good power have Schrick cams, 24# injectors (not 17.5#), and a 3.5" HFM.

All that remains for the IT car is a .040 bump.

The only other difference is the cams and the .5l.

Other than that you have slightly larger brakes (frankly we don't have brake issues anyway).

Also remember that we are talking about a flying brick with no aero allowed and not some of the newer (more) slippery designs of the S2000 and RX.

Oh well...

[Ron Earp]

I hear ya man. My crankcase evacuator kit just showed up......a day after I found the section in the main GCR making it illegal....

At least you found out. I installed it......

[JoshS]

Actually, I think Mazda initially said north of 250 right? Should we use that?

Or should we use the Mazda corrected numbered of 238?

That was then again corrected for essentially the same motor by SAE down to 232?

Don't play games man, that's just silly.

What's silly is suggesting that we should class with anything other than the manufacturer's published HP number for the car in question. The car in question is a 2004 Mazda RX-8, and Mazda says that a 2004 RX-8 has 238 horsepower. It's really simple!

That's the only thing that is *not* playing games. Using any other number would be playing games.

EDIT: Again -- feel free to argue the subjective parts of the process. Arguing the objective parts, such as the manufacturer's stated hp, is something you have to take up with the manufacturer, not with the ITAC. 238 is the only base number that we could possibly use and have any integrity of the process. Do you really not see that?