50-60hp

RSTPerformance

New member
How much (in seconds or tenths of a second) do you think that 50-60hp would gain you in a FWD IT car? (same exact car, just an increase in HP)

mainly looking at NHIS and Lime Rock but would also love to get general input.

Raymond
RST Performance Racing
 
50-60...at LRP? I don't even know what I'd do with 50% more horses...probably spin in the downhill
wink.gif

You could probably shave 3 secs off your time in the Audi...just a guess based on some of the ITE cars I've seen.

Eric
NER SM#02
 
Blix-

It would be a different car, but I didn't want to confuse people, as the cars would be virtually the same...

IE: We could build an ITA Audi Coupe GT that would start with about 20 more HP from stock and 18 more ft. lbs. torque. With development (wich our cars have very little with in the engine) we should be able to squeek out quite a bit more.

We also were thinking of a possible ITS car...

A 1993-1995 Audi 90 with a V6 (or a 1996 Audi A4). This car would have Compression Ratio: 10.3:1; Horsepower (SAE Net): 172 @ 5500 RPM and Torque: 184 ft. lbs.@ 3000 RPM. This compaired to our cars is 50-60HP more from the start. Not sure if the ITCS would classify it but we are thinking of asking.

We are entertaining the idea of possibly challenging people in another class, but not sure where we want to go. We have even thought of production so that we could run nationals, but IT still seems to be more fun!!!

Raymond Blethen
RST Performance Racing
 
Raymond-

It probably isn't as black and white as we'd all like, but let me ask you this:

Are the car you are currently running, and the car you are considering, similar handling-wise?

What is your current power to weight ratio?

What would your new power to weight ratio be?

If your car goes in a different class, what are the p/w ratios of the front runners?? (Good luck here getting reliable numbers, but as you mentioned ITA, I would guess you need a great handling car that has a p/w ratio of around 17, or 18 to be in the game. Others might have more input on that..... And in ITS, I bet the number is 13 0r 14.

Keep in mind that all cars in the same class run on nearly the same tire size, but that brakes and susp. design will affect things as well, so merely having a good p/w ratio doesn't mean a front running cer.

But it is a valuable tool, and you were asking about power!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Ray,
It's Eric, the long haired kid that drives the 02 blue and red SM...
Why don't you get your hands on one of the AWD coupes, point it to look just like the current ones, and don't tell anyone...until after the first rain race. Seriously, i think the A4 would be such a jump in development for you guys (that's when they changed to thier current and silly engine management I think), that you might prefer the 90...which are GREAT cars and probably would be alot cheaper than the A4 to run...

Eric

NER SM #02
 
Having run an ITS Miata against a bunch of SM Miatas I can pass on a little.

The ITS car is about 100# lighter than any of the spec's, we can't get it down to ITS minimum, (even with me driving) but we are lighter than they are, especially the 1.8's. We figure we are making about the same power as the really $$ motors, but more torque, and more than the crate motors. At the Summit point race, the closest SM car was 1/2 a second off our fastest lap and most were 1 to 1 1/2 behind us.

The weight makes a huge difference. Every time I get in that car it boggles me about how the brakes work & how much speed it will carry through a turn in comparison to my Nissan (600# difference). So look hard at what the minimum weight would be on that car.

Look at the VR6 Corrado. It weighs stock a bit more than a stock 2nd gen RX7 and makes about 170hp stock. They run in ITS and do OK.

Matt
 
Here are some bogies: all IMHO.

In ITS, you need great brakes, great handling and a power to weight (whp used) of UNDER 16.0.

My RX-7 is 15.76 using minumum weight. Can the Audi get there? Sure would be fun to try!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
1996 Audi A4 V6 2.8L

172 HP 2975lbs (ratings from factory)

using what others have said here... 15% gains in an IT motor brings you to 197.8 hp

2975/197.8=15.04

16" wheels/tires

Does this seem right and or at all possible??? Think SCCA would even consider classing it??? Is the 172HP rating that Audi lists at the flywheel (?) or at the wheels??? Did I determine P/W ratio correctly???

(Jack- I wanted to thank you for your input, we were originaly looking at an Audi 90 (with the V6) wich would be a very simmilar car (suspension wise) as our current cars (many might disagree however our experience is yes they have different suspension but it is still very similar in functionality/tunning capabilities). The A4 might be a little more complicated, but I can't imagine that we couldn't get it to handle as well if not better as it has a wider track, and is probably better balanced, not to mention it has much larger wheels/tires/brakes etc. Seems to me like that would be a fun/different car to race, although the car hasn't seen much success in any other series.

Eric- people already think they are AWD!!! We have to correct people all the time with that one... I think that SCCA should classify AWD but I am sure that they would be afraid to due to the success in other series around the world. The Audi 90 V6 is the same motor that is in the 1996 A4 (I think, as it is the same specs). Fuel management stuff would be a new thinkg to learn, but luckaly a lot of our freinds love those cars and one person even has the computer program used to adjust all the settings... I forget what it is called, but he has had a couple of the Audis with the V6 motors and would probably be able to help out a lot...

Raymond "our minds are ticking, but our wallets are not impressed" Blethen
 
Raymond, as I noted in the NE Forum, there's other things to consider, things that the core numbers won't tell you.

Foremost, remember your target: the E36 BMW. The E36 chassis has probably the absolutely ultimate in development, testing, and aftermarket racing support of any production-based car. BMW and privateers have been developing and testing this car for a decade, and it shows in its success.

The same cannot be said about the A4. First, it's almost impossible to find *any* aftermarket ECUs for the non-turbo V6, let alone racing-based ones. Second, it's almost impossible to find a good racing header for this car. The BMW, on the other hand, has numerous off-the-shelf options for exhausts (a VERY under-rated power gainer for race cars) and I hear that teams are even developing Motronic electronic engine control systems that fit inside the stock ECU box and use the unmodified wiring harness. Just imagine the development costs on those items. The bottom line here is that the BMWs are gaining FAR more than 15% at the crankshaft, but without a lot of ($$$) development the A4 is unlikely to attain +15%.

Moving along, although similar in stock horsepower to the 325 and a lower weight, the Audi would be at a significant disadvantage with front-wheel-drive. Even if given a 200-pound weight break versus the BMW I think one would be hard-pressed to be able to keep the A4 from burning off the front tires in chase (kkpe in mind it will likely be classed at least the 2850 pounds of the BMW). While I'm a die-hard FWD fan I realize the disadvantage in racing, as does most other major sanctioning bodies. When you toss FWD v. RWD into the mix, you've got to look way past power-to-weight as an equalizer.

This is not to say I don't find this an intriguing project; in fact I've got access to a '98 A4 with an owner itching to build one. Mid- to late-90's V6 A4s are coming on the market real cheap, and I think the A4's suspension design is excellent, possibly on par with the BMW's. The brakes aren't quite as good as the BMWs but with good pads and proper ducting could be made to work very well. It would be a fun project, though you have to keep a reality check in mind. If we could get a 150-200 pound weight break over the 325 then I'd be game for building a FWD A4; however, at comparable weights I just can't see spending the money.

Now, since AWD is not explicitly disallowed in IT, if you can get it classified at no more than the weight of the BMW 325 then an AWD A4 would be a horse of a different color, and definitely worth a look...
 
Oh, and don't forget: the A4 V6 went to 5-valve heads in 1998. 190hp/206ft-lbs versus the older engine's 172/177.

**That's** the engine you want to pit against the BMW E36's 189hp/184ft-lbs. Don't even bother with the older engine; there's absolutely ZERO development on it.

Greg


[This message has been edited by grega (edited October 06, 2003).]
 
Back
Top