I am looking at building an ITS car and was going to build an RX7 until I noticed a rules change (weight reduction). I am very familiar with the rotary engine (running a RX2 in EP and RX3 in ITA), but with the weight adjustment the RX3 lost its advantage in ITA. There are enough RX7 already out there in both ITA and ITS. As I have been looking at other cars and reading some of the topics/ posts on this forum I believe that the 944, 944s, or 924s would be the best car for ITS. My question is which model would be the best to build and why? Are there any advantages over the different models? Looking at the NASA and PCA rules the 924s looks like the model with the most modification. I am not that familiar with Porsches and was hoping for some insight from those who race these cars. Thanks in advance
944,944s or 924s
- Thread starter m33mcg
- Start date
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Or there's the 944 S2 in the soon to be approved ITR.
One issue with the 944s is the very high build cost. Milledge is charging in the $15K range for top of the range power. You can buy a few top notch rotary motors for that.
Interesting comment on the RX-3Sp in ITA. You were considering that until the weight changes were made?? Which changes caused you to change your mind?? (I think the brakes on that car are it's achilles heel)
One issue with the 944s is the very high build cost. Milledge is charging in the $15K range for top of the range power. You can buy a few top notch rotary motors for that.
Interesting comment on the RX-3Sp in ITA. You were considering that until the weight changes were made?? Which changes caused you to change your mind?? (I think the brakes on that car are it's achilles heel)
When I ran(2002) the RX3 it was 100 pounds lighter. The RX3 put out around 10 hp than the RX7. I cryo the rotors and pads (blue) whiched helped.
Will a stock 944 (2.5 (2v)), 944(2.7) or 944S engine with a few tweeeks be able to run mid-pack or in the top 5? I can slowly put an engine togather after I get it more fimilar with the car and its handling.
From what I read a stock 944(2v) puts out about 150-160bhp and a Milledge around 180+ with the same min. weight. With a 160+ - hp be cpmpetive with other ITS car?
NASA 944 cup rule: (h) 924 in both SCCA and PCA are permitted to replace original body parts with fiberglass or carbon fiber and lexan for glass. Also 924 wheels, cams and brakes are free, and the fuel injection system can be replaced with carburetors.
Would the 924 have the advantage? same weight, with open cams and fuel injection?
Will a stock 944 (2.5 (2v)), 944(2.7) or 944S engine with a few tweeeks be able to run mid-pack or in the top 5? I can slowly put an engine togather after I get it more fimilar with the car and its handling.
From what I read a stock 944(2v) puts out about 150-160bhp and a Milledge around 180+ with the same min. weight. With a 160+ - hp be cpmpetive with other ITS car?
NASA 944 cup rule: (h) 924 in both SCCA and PCA are permitted to replace original body parts with fiberglass or carbon fiber and lexan for glass. Also 924 wheels, cams and brakes are free, and the fuel injection system can be replaced with carburetors.
Would the 924 have the advantage? same weight, with open cams and fuel injection?
That's the 924, not the 924S. You try racing 2.5L cars with a 2.0L - you'll need everything you can get. Though once you know how to make an underpowered car move - you'd be surprised how many 2.5L cars you can beat. My best lap time at Mid-O would have kept me from being at the back of the pack of 944Cup cars at the recent Nationals - and that's in ITB-legal trim!
But to run ITS - you'd be a fool to choose a 924S, you will be giving away track width. And there's no advantage in weight or any other way. The only place I might think a 924S might be faster than a 944 would be running a high-banked speedway, where you'd want the better, slipperier shape of the 924S.
I'd think 944S would be the way to go. Few are competitive anymore in ITS with the 944. We've been trying to get it adjusted for sometime, and it did get a weight drop, but we haven't exactly seen any 944's shoot to the front. I think it compares, line-for-line, very well against the Nissan 240SX. Too bad the latter is an ITA car!!!
But the chassis is a wonderful one to race; great brakes and handling, very forgiving till you're on the razor's edge. Great to learn in, and very safe. You just have to know or learn how to drive an underpowered car.
But to run ITS - you'd be a fool to choose a 924S, you will be giving away track width. And there's no advantage in weight or any other way. The only place I might think a 924S might be faster than a 944 would be running a high-banked speedway, where you'd want the better, slipperier shape of the 924S.
I'd think 944S would be the way to go. Few are competitive anymore in ITS with the 944. We've been trying to get it adjusted for sometime, and it did get a weight drop, but we haven't exactly seen any 944's shoot to the front. I think it compares, line-for-line, very well against the Nissan 240SX. Too bad the latter is an ITA car!!!
But the chassis is a wonderful one to race; great brakes and handling, very forgiving till you're on the razor's edge. Great to learn in, and very safe. You just have to know or learn how to drive an underpowered car.
Team SSR
New member
Where will you be racing? We race a 944 in the Southeast. We will be at RRR this weekend - look us up if you can. We had an '86 RX7 as a street legal track car before building the 944. The 944 parts are genearally more expensive then you would expect to pay for 'comparable' RX7 parts (I know, I know "no substitute"). But there is a large network of used parts support.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I think Milledge gets another 20 HP out of the S motor. The weights just got a good going through, and the cars should be reasonably equivilent. Of course, one might be a bit stronger on long tracks or whatever, but the net net is that they are right in the process window.
Team ssr,
Thanks for the invite but that would be a long trip; I live in Topeka Kansas (Midwest division).
I was hoping to hear that the 944 or 944s would be the way to go. I am 6'3 and around 250pds and hate the momentum cars, my size is a disadvantage. There is a limit to how light I can build a car, but cutting pounds off a car is easier
.
Beside the BMW (not a big fan, always ran second to one at COMMA )what car would you sujest? Knowing what you know now, what car would you drive? I have not purchased one yet but I found a 944 donor for around 250.00
Let me ask this question. Is it legal to transplant a 944s engine and trans into a 944? Aren’t(that would make my mother proud) the bodies the same?
Thanks for the invite but that would be a long trip; I live in Topeka Kansas (Midwest division).
I was hoping to hear that the 944 or 944s would be the way to go. I am 6'3 and around 250pds and hate the momentum cars, my size is a disadvantage. There is a limit to how light I can build a car, but cutting pounds off a car is easier
. Beside the BMW (not a big fan, always ran second to one at COMMA )what car would you sujest? Knowing what you know now, what car would you drive? I have not purchased one yet but I found a 944 donor for around 250.00
Let me ask this question. Is it legal to transplant a 944s engine and trans into a 944? Aren’t(that would make my mother proud) the bodies the same?
JLawton
New member
Um, no.........
The 944S has been very competitive up here in the Northeast, but both cars are done 10/10s. big dollars to get there.
Make sure you do research on the different years of the 944. You don't want an 83!!
6'3" will be tough in a 944. I'm 6', in my 944 had my seat bolted to the floor with a flat plate, took all the padding out of the seat and still had my helmet resting on the cage and the roof.
Fastfred92
New member
Despite what the "process" people tell you the 944 / 924S is a ITA car at its original weight, you are in the same boat as I with size and weight and would never be able to get a 944 down to the new ITS weight. 944S would work if you want to spend the $$ on the engine, the car itself is not that much different than a RX7 etc. prep cost wise.
x-ring
New member
I'm 6'-04" & 230 lbs and the only cars I considered were the Datsun Z in ITS and the BMW 2002 in ITB. The 2002 had more room, but I already had a good supply (!) of Datsun spares and more are easy to find compared to a 2002.
I never test fitted a 325 (e30 or e36), so no comment there.
BTW, I just barely make it in the Z, with an aluminum seat mounted directly to the car.
EDIT: Let me rephrase that first sentence. I only considered two cars (Datsun Z and BMW 2002) because most of the reasonably competitive cars I could afford to race were too small for me.
I never test fitted a 325 (e30 or e36), so no comment there.
BTW, I just barely make it in the Z, with an aluminum seat mounted directly to the car.
EDIT: Let me rephrase that first sentence. I only considered two cars (Datsun Z and BMW 2002) because most of the reasonably competitive cars I could afford to race were too small for me.
Help me out a little here. Didnt they make the 944 and the 944S in 87? There is a lot of differance but if you move it right into a 87 944 body its just another 944S Right??
Whats wrong with the 83?
lighter to start with and has manual steering. Cheaper A arms of steel too. I dont think you could but the 944S(87) into the 83 because they came from the factory with the Steel A arms and steering. 
Lawrence
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Technically, there is a VIN rule, and if the VIN IDs the car to be a certain model, (and that model isn't on the spec line you're claiming) some (prick) body could protest you and win.........even if the chassis are exactly the same.
The VIN rule was left in because there was a fear that somewhere out there there is a Bobcat XK type R that has an identical looking chassis to the Bobcat XK, but in reality there are significant differences hidden deep, and that unscrupulous types would pull a switcheroo.
It was hotly debated within the ITAC. (Interestingly, the person who wrote the request to remove the VIN rule is active on this board, and is known to be rather conservative with such things)
The VIN rule was left in because there was a fear that somewhere out there there is a Bobcat XK type R that has an identical looking chassis to the Bobcat XK, but in reality there are significant differences hidden deep, and that unscrupulous types would pull a switcheroo.
It was hotly debated within the ITAC. (Interestingly, the person who wrote the request to remove the VIN rule is active on this board, and is known to be rather conservative with such things)
JLawton
New member
Whats wrong with the 83?
Lawrence
[/b]
It's been a few years, but if I remember, the 83 was only 143 hp............ not exactly ITS numbers.......at any weight.........and no removable chip.
I guess the VIN # rule would keep you from putting the 88 924S engine with just over 160HP in the 83 too. The weight of the cars does not take this into play as well I guess. The 88 engine had better cooling and oiling too. Bet there are a lot of no-83 engines in 83 cars in IT. No wait there are not a lot of 944 in IT to start with
Lawrence
Fastfred92
New member
Not to doubt you but the early cars must be a hell of a lot lighter than 86 up. Our 86 PCA car from a few years back set up almost exactly like todays IT rules weighed 2400 lbs without driver and a just a enough gas to keep it running.
When even Kirk agrees a rule sucks, it really sucks!
Team SSR
New member
Fastfred,
At 2400lbs + 240lb. driver you are only 65lbs. away from 2575lbs. There may be some weight in interior parts (left in for PCA rules?), rollcage differences, exhaust system, wheels, power steering, starter size, gauges in dash, undercoating removed, etc...
After you remove all the things you are allowed to remove for ITS the biggest difference between the early and late cars is the aluminum suspension parts. Not sure where there would be extra weight in the later cars???