IT prep Whp for honda VTEC's

Kirk, not sure I fully understand your thinking so forgive me if I make assumptions that are incorrect.

In my view, once we move away from a strict (well, strict-ish) use of stock hp as the basis for a the process weight, and start trying to come up with a IT power multiplier that incorporates torque then we run into a huge problem: gear ratios and torque under the curve. We then have to start looking at where cars make power and torque and that to me is the beginning of a nightmare.

The stock hp X IT adder X class pwr/weight target seems to work. IT classing should be as simple as possible, and that is simple. I personally would throw out the brakes and suspension adders -- totally subjective and impossible to accurately quantify given what we can do with brakes and suspension -- but leave in the subjective torque adder as a "rough" means of dealing with the legitimate problem Bob identifies above and the FWD subtractor.

Knestis said:
>> ...

I still don't believe we're dealing with torque the way we might (as a possible starting value for the process) and a specific HP factor in the "IT power multiplier" might help address these differences. Note here that I'm totally cool with this consideration because it's more closely tied to engine architecture factors, and it would keep us from getting into make-model specific considerations, which is how the question here might be interpreted. (As though Hondas should be different because they're Hondas.)

K

K
Click to expand...
 
Greg,

Can you provide the ITAC with your statistical analysis on FWD 'adders' for our review? The more data the better.

That would be better than 'you guys never listen to me and therefor have it wrong again'. Right? Why not submit something proactively instead of telling us how much we suck because we have it wrong?

Wasn't so long ago that the ITS FWD adder was 50lbs.
 
I wasn't proposing setting the power multipliers (as they are currently conceived) by considering torque. I was suggesting using something like Travis described - another factor in the power math - instead of futzing around with guesses about torque. This, plus a more sensitive FWD subractor might be enough to get us a repeatable, quantitative process without the big gaps we seem to fight over.

K
 
That was a non-VTEC SI which gets a very generous 160 Hp basis. It weighs less than a GSR!!!
Its for sale in the used ads!
 
Bob Roth said:
That was a non-VTEC SI which gets a very generous 160 Hp basis. It weighs less than a GSR!!!
Its for sale in the used ads!
Click to expand...

I glanced thru the for sale ads and didn't see anything that jumped out at me. Do you have a link for the car/ad? What generation/year Civic are you talking about?

Thanks,
Christian
 
I have not been on the internet today, but it seems that the snow in the Northeast has given some people some time to discuss.

With that said, I was one of the cast that pushed hard for the ITS FWD subtractor to be #100 lbs. At the time this #50 weight reduction was a huge win and was important to attract some additional Honda guys to jump on board. Previously, one would be an idiot (I happened to be an idiot) to run an Integra in ITS. There was simply no way in hell it was going to compete.

That was 3 years ago. Now interestingly some more have been developed and the trends seems to be coming back to the same discussion. The ITS integra is closing in on the RX7, but it is still not even. I agree with this 100% and know in driving one where the problems lie.

We, as FWD drivers, need to present data to the ITAC for them to chew on. When ITR becomes developed, the FWD problem will be exaggerated even more. Until then we will need to stop talking in theory and talk in data. How to do this? Not easy...

To go back on topic, yes BOB the SCCA has always been very cautious with the VTEC cars. Honda just made the engines so damn good. I believe that the VTEC motors can get to the 25% multiple, BUT it will cost a BOAT LOAD of money to do. As you know the motors have very little left in them given Honda's extensive research and manufacturing processes. With that said, IMHO the 25% adder is not were we should be focusing. We need to focus on the FWD subtractor as not being enough.
 
Last edited:
Tnord,
Email me and explain all this! I didn't know you had joined the "Frustrated Engineer Frat" that is such a big deal here on the IT board! Einstein would have been a mear tire changer among this group!!!:rolleyes::D
 
IPRESS said:
Tnord,
Email me and explain all this! I didn't know you had joined the "Frustrated Engineer Frat" that is such a big deal here on the IT board! Einstein would have been a mear tire changer among this group!!!:rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

it looks a little complicated, but it's equally as archaic with the random "devide by 3" figure put in there. seems like it works for the most part.

it's a mathematical way of saying "with IT rules, you can only ever get x whp/liter, and the power adder we give you will be based on how close the factory already got to that figure.

it will take some refinement to work, because in my mind the maximum hp/L you're assuming will differ based on the basic architecture of the motor.....I6, I4, V6, DOHC, SOHC, pushrod.....etc.
 
Jeremy, I think the HP calculation is where we need to look. Tell me where I can spend to make a 155 hp 1,6 VTEC motor a 175 hp motor? I can't make it rev 15% higher unless I cheat on the valve springs and port the head like a type r. Besides, the consensus is that the 1.6 intake won't flow sp unless I change the intake to type R, it won't make much difference.

Now if spending a ton of money to get to 175 means re-allign bore the block to get 12 to one compression, I think we hace a rule problem don't we. There is a reason why 100 hp to liter is an accomplishment. Bottom line is the things that help a 70 hp per liter motor have already been done on the 100 hp per liter motor.

Ps, Jeremy, remember me? I almost bought your GSR last year for endurance racing, small world huh.
 
Bob Roth said:
Jeremy, I think the HP calculation is where we need to look. Tell me where I can spend to make a 155 hp 1,6 VTEC motor a 175 hp motor? I can't make it rev 15% higher unless I cheat on the valve springs and port the head like a type r. Besides, the consensus is that the 1.6 intake won't flow sp unless I change the intake to type R, it won't make much difference.

Now if spending a ton of money to get to 175 means re-allign bore the block to get 12 to one compression, I think we hace a rule problem don't we. There is a reason why 100 hp to liter is an accomplishment. Bottom line is the things that help a 70 hp per liter motor have already been done on the 100 hp per liter motor.

Ps, Jeremy, remember me? I almost bought your GSR last year for endurance racing, small world huh.
Click to expand...

Your point is taken Bob. My only point is there are examples out there with cars making 25% so perhaps for the 1.6L a weight adjustment can be made, but for a couple of the other motors it will be hard to push the ITAC when they have dyno sheets to show a 25% gain.

It is a small world! How is the Type R working for you? You did by a Type R, right?
 
Xian said:
I glanced thru the for sale ads and didn't see anything that jumped out at me. Do you have a link for the car/ad? What generation/year Civic are you talking about?

Thanks,
Christian
Click to expand...

Bob Roth said:
The 160 Hp Si was a Prelude, look at http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25399
Click to expand...

Ahhhh... gotcha. Your original post referencing a 160hp D-series VTEC engine is what I was asking about and kept throwing me off.

Agreed that the Prelude looks like a great car for the class and looks like a more competitive package than the GSR/DelSol/Civic Si.
 
Bob Roth said:
Camaro (5.8 liter) -- 33.3 hp/liter
Click to expand...

I didn't know Chevy made a 5.8L. They made a 5.7, but I also thought that most of the proposed ITR cars were 5.0L 305ci. Doesn't really matter cause the 5.7s of that vintage weren't all that either.
 
Bob Roth said:
Jeremy, I think the HP calculation is where we need to look. Tell me where I can spend to make a 155 hp 1,6 VTEC motor a 175 hp motor? I can't make it rev 15% higher unless I cheat on the valve springs and port the head like a type r. Besides, the consensus is that the 1.6 intake won't flow sp unless I change the intake to type R, it won't make much difference.

Now if spending a ton of money to get to 175 means re-allign bore the block to get 12 to one compression, I think we hace a rule problem don't we. There is a reason why 100 hp to liter is an accomplishment. Bottom line is the things that help a 70 hp per liter motor have already been done on the 100 hp per liter motor.
Click to expand...

Im not sure what dyno you use, or anything but...


If you are struggling to get 160hp to the wheels out of a B16a, i have a few people you could talk to.. The tq isn't going to be there but we have had a few 160-170whp b16a

Sure you need to do a full legal IT build to get it, but that isn't the rules falt.

Also i am not sure who you get your info from but there is NOTHING wrong with the IM on the B16a, you do know that it is the exact same one on the b18c5?

This is the same IM with IT 1" porting that can support 200whp or more on b16a and b18c5.
 
Hi Jeremy,

I was one of those idiots who believed whole heartly that it had a chance in ITS. I built my GSR in mid 2005. Sorted through some things for the first 2 races, decided to run 225/50/15 when the rest of the country ran 225/45/15. The first race at Laguna in Aug 2005, the GSR qualified 0.007 seconds from pole, and Led the race prior to turn 1, against 9 other RWD ITS entries. 3 races later, I got my first win in ITS. This is with a 75-80% built GSR (running stock bottom end, stock final drive, stock ecu, abs unit, and stock clutch).

I never got the chance to race in ITS after 2005, and with the 100lb deductor plus a full built car, I think I can do some damage. I don't really think the car needs another 100lbs off, but I'll take it :)
 
hondaracer48 said:
I never got the chance to race in ITS after 2005, and with the 100lb deductor plus a full built car, I think I can do some damage. I don't really think the car needs another 100lbs off, but I'll take it :)
Click to expand...
Hey Ed,

Why are you selling? Get yourself and your car back out on the track!

Josh
 
bamfp said:
From the few laps that I got to drive it it was like driving and ITC car.
Click to expand...

This really makes me scratch my head.

ITS GSR race weight 2590lbs

178 whp

129 ft/tq to the wheels

Gear Ratio
1st 3.23
2nd 1.9
3rd 1.36
4th 1.034
5th .787

ITA Integra LS/RS/GS race weight 2620 (for the DC) and 2595 (DA)
(for both the DA and DC, i have never seen a difference in the two)
149 whp

135 ft/tq to the wheels

gear ratio (DC/DA same)
1st 3.23
2nd 1.9
3rd 1.269
4th .966
5th .714


Now how does a car that weighs less then either similiar(da)/exact(DC) chassis minus the motor/trans, but has more HP similiar TQ, and better gearing feel like an ITC car?
 
Last edited:
The car is sitting at Ken's (I/O Port) house. Liberty and I moved to AZ, and between keeping my 1yr old daughter fed, and calming down my 6yr old son, I'm lucky to be able to sign on to it.com. Keep up the good work Josh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top