please help me understand the ITB Honda issue

[tom91ita]

The 85-87 Civic/CRX should be x by 35%. It is very easy to get 105+ whp from those cars. I have built three of them that make that. It should also have the same tq as hp as well. It could stand a few pounds to be taken off it but nothing much under 2100#.

Just my $.02

Blake

Blake,

i appreciate the feedback on what my car should be able to produce. honestly, since i have not been to a dyno.

if i use the 1.35 factor you suggest, i get a "process" weight of 2038.

it is really the accord that stands out in my opinion.

if i look at some of the most common hondas competing, they typically have factors of about 1.4+. the accord is dead on at 1.25.

taking the basic process and calculating the power multiplier to approximate the weights, you would have the following for common hondas competing.

ITC crx 1.40
ITB crx 1.41
ITB civic 1.43
ITA crx 1.44

so what is so restrictive in the engine design that the accord only has a factor of 1.25 when it has the same HP/cc from the factory as the 85-87 crx si? this is what i was alluding to when i said picking a car/dark horse could be based on looking for an "oddball" car within a manufacturer when it comes to power factors.

[Knestis]

Remember that the A-arm suspension adder gets plunked on after the power factor and class multiplier get applied. Or would, if we were using the process.

K

[Bill Miller]

Remember that the A-arm suspension adder gets plunked on after the power factor and class multiplier get applied. Or would, if we were using the process.

K

[StephenB]

Blake,

i appreciate the feedback on what my car should be able to produce. honestly, since i have not been to a dyno.

if i use the 1.35 factor you suggest, i get a "process" weight of 2038.

it is really the accord that stands out in my opinion.

if i look at some of the most common hondas competing, they typically have factors of about 1.4+. the accord is dead on at 1.25.

taking the basic process and calculating the power multiplier to approximate the weights, you would have the following for common hondas competing.

ITC crx 1.40
ITB crx 1.41
ITB civic 1.43
ITA crx 1.44

so what is so restrictive in the engine design that the accord only has a factor of 1.25 when it has the same HP/cc from the factory as the 85-87 crx si? this is what i was alluding to when i said picking a car/dark horse could be based on looking for an "oddball" car within a manufacturer when it comes to power factors.

I'll take this one I'll bite!:026: check out what the CRB members drive in ITB And while at it see what the other one that doesn't drive a Honda drives and do the math on that car

[iambhooper]

Blake, you have a message.

hoop

[Bill Miller]

I'll take this one I'll bite!:026: check out what the CRB members drive in ITB And while at it see what the other one that doesn't drive a Honda drives and do the math on that car

Take that one a step further. What do you think the chances that the 'negative adder' for the rear beam doesn't get corrected because that would be 'in violation of the GCR'?

[mossaidis]

My 2 cents, I think wheelbase might be a factor as well.

Look at the 92-95 Civic Si, same specs as the Honda Civic EX Coupe/Sedan VTEC (92-95) but my Si is 25 lbs heavier. only difference between those two cars is 1.9 inch wheelbase.

Mickey

[jimmyc]

My 2 cents, I think wheelbase might be a factor as well.

Look at the 92-95 Civic Si, same specs as the Honda Civic EX Coupe/Sedan VTEC (92-95) but my Si is 25 lbs heavier. only difference between those two cars is 1.9 inch wheelbase.

Mickey

Nope, at least not consistently.

88-91 CRX SI and 88-91 Civic SI and 1991 Civic EX

Are all classed at the same weight, they have different wheelbases, and even all have different brakes.


Really its just a matter of nothing being that consistent.

Which is what K and others were trying to get, even though everyone knows it wouldn't be perfect it would be CONSISTENT.

[mossaidis]

That's why voted to have ITAC reclassify ALL IT cars using a standard and VERY public equation/rules. The wheelbase is the only way I can justify my little world and be able to sleep okay at night.

Naively,
mickey

[Knestis]

That's why voted to have ITAC reclassify ALL IT cars using a standard and VERY public equation/rules. The wheelbase is the only way I can justify my little world and be able to sleep okay at night.

Naively,
mickey

Did you share that opinion with the BoD and CRB? If not, it won't even be heard, let alone taken into consideration.

ALL - YOU NEED TO GET REAL. At this point, give up all pretense that any currently listed IT car will get any weight spec attention, including those for which were submitted but not yet acted upon. There will be NO "system" except as it might get applied for newly listed cars based on the most recent opinions issued by the CRB - at least based on what I've most recently heard.

Conversations here are officially a waste of bandwidth unless/until Club leadership changes its mind in regard to how the ITAC is allowed to do its work.

K

[GTIspirit]

Take that one a step further. What do you think the chances that the 'negative adder' for the rear beam doesn't get corrected because that would be 'in violation of the GCR'?

Well, everyone knows that FWD cars inherently understeer, so only having one wheel on the ground at the back helps mitigate that situation, right.

[tom91ita]

maybe that is what the CRB has in mind?

given that the car has a 62/38 front to rear weight bias and only has three wheels on the ground in the corners, then it only weighs 1725 #'s?

and then you average that weight 20% of the time for a curvy track and 80% at the 2130, that means my average weight must be about 2049 #'s.

that is pretty much the 100 #'s i was hoping for! never mind....

[raffaelli]

ITA crx 1.44

The D16A6 has a 149HP potential in IT trim?

[quadzjr]

The D16A6 has a 149HP potential in IT trim?

I sure as hell hope not.. don't see it happen legally.. or altest within the intent of the rules.

[jimmyc]

I sure as hell hope not.. don't see it happen legally.. or altest within the intent of the rules.

at the crank, probably something close to that.

[quadzjr]

though my last few D16a6 builds have been far from 10/10ths builds. They were putting down 130-140 to the wheels, however these motors were 12:1 compression, decent cams, etc..

[raffaelli]

though my last few D16a6 builds have been far from 10/10ths builds. They were putting down 130-140 to the wheels, however these motors were 12:1 compression, decent cams, etc..

9.6 cr limit in IT.

[tom91ita]

though my last few D16a6 builds have been far from 10/10ths builds. They were putting down 130-140 to the wheels, however these motors were 12:1 compression, decent cams, etc..

i hope that was your FP car and not your ITA

[quadzjr]

i hope that was your FP car and not your ITA

why yes it was.. just built a new motor, now having ignition issues.. we keep buring up coils/ignitors.. nothing has chaged then all of a sudden... issues. Looks like we maybe going a different route. Hoping to be back on track februaryish.

[Xian]

The D16A6 has a 149HP potential in IT trim?

at the crank, probably something close to that.

Yep. You'd want to target around 130whp out of a D16A6 (which is at the upper end of achievable).